Talk:Mongols/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Death toll

In the year 1000 the entire world population was 310 000 000.

In the year 1750 the entire world population was 791 000 000. Asia at this time had 502 000 000.

Genghis Kahn and alike was set during 1200. Now, if we use the 1750 population figures, Mongolians killed off 6% of the entire world population (80 million killed)? But the 1200 population figure, the death toll would have been nearly doubled, like 10%. So the death toll in comparisons killed WAY more than world war one and two combined totals. That's goddamn amazing...

-G

Death of the Last Caliph

I noticed that a section on the Caliph's death by being bound and trampled was removed... I've heard this from several sources before... has it been disproven, ie was it propaganda or myth? I'm curious to hear how the Caliph really did die. External links, anyone? -Kasreyn

Counterfactuals

Such scenarios must be viewed keeping in mind knowledge of their origin.

the counterfactual scenarios, ie., are they from unreliable sources? or the origin of the Mongols? I submit that the counterfactual proposal that Europe would have fallen had not the Great Khan died is so probable as to be nearly unassailable. Subotai was quite possibly the greatest military strategist who ever lived, and he had already handily destroyed the two best armies of Eastern Europe, while the forces of Western Europe were still tied up in their age-old squabbles and weren't paying attention to their danger, ready to be devoured piecemeal. In particular I think the article definitely needs some elaboration on how heavily the Eastern European campaign relied on the genius of Subotai, and how narrowly Europe escaped a ravaging like the one Russia received. Another interesting point is the relatively modern arrangement of the Mongolian military; Subotai was low-born, and yet was allowed to command nobility in the field, in recognition of his superior skill; this sort of sensible organization was largely unknown in Europe at the time, and for long afterwards (witness the blue-blooded buffoons commanding the French at Agincourt two hundred years later).

At this point I don't know whether to simply excise that line or elaborate on the counterfactual theories. I'm tempted to do both. Opinions? -Kasreyn

The conquest of Europe conterfactual should be elaborated as it is detailed in a What If book, and these books are considered pretty prestigous among conterfactual literature. The other thoughts I have on this matter are uncited and should be confirmed if any one would for some odd reason decide to include them in this article I have read that the Mongols would be unlikely to expand deep into Europe as they would get into hilly terrain not necessarily suited to Mongol warfare. Terrain is often the limiting factor on armies immensely more powerful than their neighbors, and many say the terrain of Java was what limited the Yuan conquest there, though it is an open question whether German hilly terrain would be detrimental enough to make a serious difference. More likely in my mind would be the conquest of Poland, Hungary, and maybe some parts of the Balkans, and a web of Tribuary states across Germany and Italy, though due to the wealth of Italy there could be an invasion there. Another conterfactual is that if the Mongols did not go back to elect a successor to Monke/Mangu Khan, and leave only a skeleton force in Syria, they might have been able to defeat the Malmaluk empire and expand their Muslim empire, but it is likely desert terrain would limit Mongol expansion in that direction, though it is possible that the Mongols could take Egypt and threaten Nubia, though I am uncertain as to how the Nubian terrain and army would due against the Mongols and if then how they would interact with the Ethiopians

---

Can someone reword the phrase and maybe relocate the sentences that I wrote about Genghis tracking down his enemy leader. I think this is true and it was very smart one. For example, the enemy leader can't regather a troop to start a war once the invasion slowed down. It makes sense I think.

---

---

Removed the word "more numerous" on Military Innovation. This is pretty much agreed on that the Mongol armies wasn't "numerous" than the other enimies almost in all combats, e.g. China and Europe. For instance, there are instances where Mongol 20,000 defeated 80,000 soldiers. It was much more about quality than quantity

---

QUOTE They are, by and large, much nicer than their genocidal ancestors... /QUOTE Eurocentric and emotional point of view?

• Agreed. Altering. -- April

---

I've added some detail, and rewrote it to a more NPOV. I'd really appreciate some feedback on my NPOV writing style, I feel it is my weakest point. Thanks.

Dobbs 20:31 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

---

THE MONGOLS WERE LIGHT CAVALRY, WHO WON BATTLES PRIMARILY BY HAVING A SUPERIOR TYPE OF COMPOUND BOW THAT THEY COULD FIRE PROFICIENTLY AT A FULL GALLOP, THEY NEVER EVEN GOT CLOSE TO THEIR ENEMIES UNTIL THE BATTLE WAS A MOPPING UP OPERATION. CHARACTERIZING THEM AS INFANTRY IS COMPLETELY WRONG.

---

An unknown user put that in on the main page. Hopefully, he'll figure out how to get here to read my reply.

You are completely correct, of course. Mongol armies consisted of something like 2/3rds light cavalry, and 1/3rd heavy cavalry, if I remember correctly. One of the hazards of editing at 2 in the morning, is that you read and re-read some of your own mistakes until they become invisible. Thank you for pointing that out.

However, I still think the sum total of their innovations is more important than the single skill of proficient shooting from the back of a horse. That could of been overcome by any of their opponents by a change in tactics. I feel it was the sum total of what they put into practice that made them unstoppable.

Mongols developed heavy cavalry and used silk gambesons. That was a light and superior protection, compareable to Kevlar wests. Their enemys used steel armour and linen gambesons. Wandalstouring 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dobbs 17:54 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

---

I was wondering if anyone knows why the Wikipedia replaced my quotes with question marks in the Mongol article? Or was that intentional on the part of the person who edited it? Look at the differences to see examples. Am I missing something in how I should be formatting my pages? Thanks. Dobbs 15:41 Sep 15, 2002 (UTC)

That typically happens when you bring in text from MS Word or other Microsoft products, or Adobe Pagemaker etc. It's because the character codes used in those programs are non-standard and don't represent anything outside of those programs. To avoid it, you can "save as text," converting e.g. — to --, then paste it into wikipedia. --KQ

---

Why were large part of my article removed without comment? Dobbs 14:39 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

*BEIJING* is north capital, Nanjing/Yanjing is south capital

This may or may not be true, but as a comment I think it belongs on this page. Anyone care to confirm the statement's veracity and edit the main page? Lancevortex 23:19 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Beijing is North Capital, Nanjing is South Capital, but Yanjing is definitely not south capital. Yan refers to a state by that name in the Waring State Period, which included geographically areas in today's Hebei Province in China, which surrounds the Beijing Municipality. Yanjing literally means Yan Capital but was used to refer to Beijing. There was in Beijing (called Beiping at the time) a famous university called Yanjing University, in early part of the 20th century.

• "may or may not be true" ? That bei [北] is north, jing [京] is capital, and nan [南] is south, is well-known, basic Chinese. See any text...

Actually you can simply look at their wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing or http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing or http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC

---

hey Folks, first time on wikipedia posting. I was actually under the impression that Mongolians preferred to be called Mongolians. After all Mongol is a Chinese for old-way and is viewed as well not quite racial slang, but basically something along the lines of calling a mexican a wet-back or something. I'm not sure of this, but I'm in Korea and there's several articles advising Koreans to call Mongolians Mongolians and NOT Mongols. The article all state Mongol is considered a bad word in Mongolia.

Actually, Mongol(ian)s don't really care. Both "Mongol" and "Mongolian" are acceptable. Neither is considered even slightly derrogatory. Монгол <Mongol> is in fact the Mongolian word for "Mongol" (and can also denote "Mongolian", "Mongolia", and basically anything else "Mongolian", including the language).

I think that poster was probably referring to the fact that the Chinese characters used to transcribe the word "Mongol," i.e. 蒙古 Měnggǔ, have a somewhat derogatory connotation. The name in Chinese appears to mean something like "ignorant ancients." Ebizur 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I really don't understand why counterfactual speculation is included on this page in the first place. I've read some hundreds of history articles on Wikipedia and none of them indulge in this sort of thing. I'm a great fan of "what-if" fiction and I've used counterfactuals as a teaching method myself, to get history students thinking about cause and effect -- but counterfactuals are not history. You can make up an alternative set of facts for virtually any historical event, but so what?

And the series of essay-collections edited by Cowley, by the way, are not that highly regarded by either historians (those who countenance counterfactual speculation in the first place) or readers of science fiction. Read the reviews. --Michael K. Smith 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That raises an interesting question. Where can I find reviews written by actual historians, and how can I be certain of their credentials? Most reviews I've read have been by amateurs, ie non-historians. Can you tell me where you found these reviews? -Kasreyn 12:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hazaras too

The Hazaras of central Afghanistan are descended from Mongol armies and are predominantly Mongol in race. The language must be around 5% Mongol and similar for culture and music. Consider this group and the 10 million mark goes up to 17 million, but then again, other groups like Kyrghiz etc would also beg to be included, even 'mongoloid' people which includes Tibetians and Thai.

The numbers in Inner Mongolia are very hazy now.

Sorghaghtani Beki

A lot of the current page isn't true and I hope to re-write it shortly. My three main complaints would be:

1) From the very beginning (the Xi Hia in 1209) the Mongols would hold states in vassal-ship (as opposed to completely destroying all other people, as the article implies). True they toned down the destruction over time, but the article over-simplifies the matter.

2) Sorghaghtani Beki was not such a super-woman as the article implies. She was not Genghis Khan's advisor. She came of prominence after his death. The idea that she was more famous than the Khans doesn't make sense - of course those in the Mongol empire and the immediate vicinity knew who Kublai Khan was. In Marco Polo, she wasn't mentioned, Kublai was.

3) It's left un-mentioned until the most recent edit that the Mongols mainly sacked cities, as they had been doing throughout their history. Their prominence under the Khan can mostly be seen as them doing what they had always done before, but being more successful at it due to their unified population and weakened neighbors.

To the point one: what was the name of the administrative units of mongol empire in English, was it ulus, oulus, or how it is spellt in English? Compay 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

change in perspective?

I think some revision of this subject is required. I think the tone of the piece passes judgment on the Mongols as savage barbarians. In particular, I think the following two paragraphs should be reworked to reflect a more nuanced understanding of motivations behind Mongol behavior towards their conquests:

"Conquest, in the Khan's initial viewpoint, did not consist of subordination of competing cultures to the nomadic way of life, but rather in their looting and destruction. As a nomad, Genghis Khan is supposed to not have understood (or cared) of the supposed benefits in the city dwellers' way of life. This contrasts with their dependence on trade with the cities. However, the economic theories of these relationships still lay seven centuries in the future.

The Khan's initial plan of conquest was sacking all that was valuable, and then razing the city and killing the entire population, leaving only artists and human shields (for future campaigns) to survive. Different theories exist for why the Mongols were initially so extreme. Militarily, the Mongols were often far from home territory and greatly out-numbered, and wouldn't want to leave enemies in their rear. Psychologically, the Mongols were a nomadic people, and saw no use for a civilian population. Economically, destroying population centers gave the Mongols more room to graze their herds."''

I would recommend reading "Genghis Kahn and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford for a fresh perspective and as support for my following assertions. Weatherford's book suggests that, in accordance with their hunter/ shepherd mindset, the Mongols viewed sedentary agricultural civilizations as a resource to be cultivated in the manner as would a hunter/ gather/ shepherd. They had no inclination to adopt, however, the sedentary lifestyle of their "civilized" neighbors. What was created, then, was a fairly sophisticated system of exploitation, trade and patronage. I think that Genghis Khan was astute enough to fully understand what he had conquered and how to exploit it fully. It is true, however, that Mongols had initiated conquest in order to obtain material wealth through plundering their conquered neighbors, but I think to stop at that without further elaboration of the development of trade within the Mongol empire would be to mischaracterize the subject.

I think you are falling into the trap, recently greatly in vogue, of believing that every ancient culture long reviled as "barbarians" by western scholars, must have not been. The common belief seems to be that western history has been entirely false in every regard! On this topic, I happen to think western scholars were (probably through no merit of their own) correct to a large degree. How do you equate your notion of the Khans as cultivators, with the destruction of the Mesopotamian irrigation system, drastically reducing that land's population carrying capacity? With the reduction of Kiev from a bustling trading port to a burnt-out shell? I have heard claims that the area has still not recovered economically. That the Mongols traded is, of course, undisputable, though much of that economy was based on continuing influx of war spoils. I also think you're trying to whitewash them by saying they "had no inclination" to "adopt... [a] sedentary lifestyle". That's a lot milder, after all, than saying they burnt down cities across Asia. Even if they didn't necessarily raze every single city they encountered, they certainly had little interest in what we call civilization. Genghis, perhaps, had the vision to see more, but his descendants seemed interested in little more than conquest after conquest. (Please note, however, that I do not mean this rebuttal in any acrimonious way, and if you have sources besides Weatherford's book - which I'll try to find a copy of - I'd love to hear about them. :) -Kasreyn

I think the mid-point here is that the Mongols destroyed those who opposed them, and spared those who complied. See, the Kievan Rus was largely destroyed, but the Northern Moskovy princedoms were spared, as they accepted the rule of the Mongols. And it is definite that the Mongols desertify the Rus, as several decennies after they left people from Kievan Rus were able to colonize to East and South. Asserting that the Mongols aimed at destroying populations is incompatible with the fct that they conducted regular censuses and had a relatively sophisticated bureaucracy (borrowed from the chinese, largely) I am not familiar with what happened in other parts of the Mongol empire, though. And yes, qualifying someone as "barbarian" is not only emotional and degrading, but also obscures the reality. "Barbarian" is not a scientific term, is it? It would not be politically correct to use "barbarian" and similar qualifications in anthropology, why tolerate it in history? To my opinion, wikipedia should not seek the lowest common denominator, but aim at a higher level of objectivity. Compay 00:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are falling into the trap, recently greatly in vogue, of believing that every ancient culture long reviled as "barbarians" by western scholars, must have not been'. This thread is quite interesting to me as a Mongol descendant searching for my history. Emotionally, we are not offended with the use of the word barbarian applied retroactively more than the Germans would be. Indeed there was colossal loss of life initially in the Mongol Empire, but I find it hard to believe such genius commanders and statesmen would simply follow nomadic mindsets and raze entire populations just because of the way things are. Indeed if you go through the initial conquests, anyone who surrendered was completely spared and vassalized (if thats a word). I think they set out a principle and stuck to it. Trade was more important to Mongols than is portrayed as represented by the fact that the Khwarazm Shah killed the initial Mongol trade canavan sent by Genghis, and was sent another one just to ask why. The bulk of the genocide was committed against the Chinese in my opinion because of the longstanding hatred-of-the-neighbor. I believe the Chinese had the greatest contempt for the Mongols during Genghis' time, and had to be dealt with most severely to establish the respect and intimidation Genghis so sought.

-Ghazan Haider (ghazanhaider at yahoo)

The Mongols primary concern seems to be tribute in most cases, and they generally spared those when it was granted. They also asked for troops and loyalty. The perfect example of this is their treatment of the Tanguts, they asked for tribute, troops and loyalty, fought for it, got it, then the Tanguts stopped giving it, so the Mongols destroyed them. Troops was often as important as tribute, since by the middle the conquest the Mongol armies were only partially Mongol, but rather incorporated a large number of conquered peoples. The Mongols were undeniably brutal in conquest, this can mitigated somewhat by the standards of the time and what others would do with such power, but even considering that the Mongols were brutal, and were considered by all their contemporaries to be the most brutal of all the peoples, though the Mongols are in the unique situation, where nearly all of their history, with the notable exception of the Secret History of the Mongols, was written by the losers, by those who with good reason absolutely hated the Mongols. In any case after the conquest, the actions varied. The Golden Horde still was largely tribute focused, giving no care to the inner workings of the Russian states as long as they swore allegiance and gave tribute. But they did adapt the local Muslim culture. The Il-Khans also adapted the local Muslim culture and after the brutality of the conquest made attempts to encourage it and they attempted to be good rulers, concerned with more than tribute, though taxes, in the form of tax farming, continued to be a big issue. This ultimately, coupled with mismanagement helped undermine the rule. The Chagiate Khanate adapted the Turkish culture but had weak rule and was never able to inflict dramatic policies. The Yuan Dynasty whole-heartly embraced Chinese culture and while maintaining Mongol pride attempted to be good Chinese rulers, similiar to the Qing empire. They helped encourage commerce and elevated merchants beyond their normal low Confucian position. They were very successful for a little while, though problems arose, among which was tax farmering, causing ad coupled with a rising anti-foreigner movement among the Chinese which prompted the establishment of the Ming Dynasty. In Mongolia itself, the legacy of Genghis Khan was much more unified and qualified rulers and an established written language and law code. It is not simply for the conquests that Genghis Khan ought be considered a good ruler for the Mongolians. The later Mongol rulers varied in their practices. The notable ones were Timur and Barbur. Timur was massively destructive, but did encourage Muslim scholarship and build up certain regions, mostly those of his homeland, importing scholars from Persia to Samarkaland. Barbur was not especially destructive and was as far as I know a decent ruler. His descendents vary, Akbar being the most famous and renown for good rule, Aurangzeb, was known for Muslim piety, extensive conquests, and a bitter intolerance that helped spawn rebellion and discontent. In short, after a while the Mongol descendents drifted from the original Mongol frame. But to get back to the question of whether the Mongols were barbarians. That of course is a relative term. They at first were usually tribute oriented, some became established and sometimes good rulers. It is unneccessary to attribute this to their nomadic heritage, though that probably influenced things. It is not hard to understand why a people would want tribute and power or be ruthless in going after this, it is a common thing in history, though in the extent of this drive, the Mongols might well be legendary

--- ---- ----------- -------------- --------- There is a midpoint that can be reached. The word "barbarian" need not be derogatory. It was often used in the context of some simply being a "foreigner". At other times, and in other places, it carried a pejorative context. But such negative connotations are not restricted to Western cultures. In fact the Chinese were at times dismissive of outsiders, considering them lesser "barbarians" and considering Chinese culture and sophiscation to be superior. Indeed, until around the 15th century, China was the most technologically advanced nation on earth. The sweeping exploratory voyages of Admiral Cheng Ho (Zheng He) for example were undertaken prior to Columbus and in vessels far superior to the caravels of the Italian captain.

A happy balance is to indeed acknowledge the Mongols are ruthless conquerors and plunderers, but evidence such as that presented by Weatherford also makes clear that the Mongols saw the benefits of preserving selected cities and areas, if only to ensure steady supplies of tribute. As a consequence of that relative forbearance, new patterns of trade and production developed. It need not be an either-or situation. Enriquecardova 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "barbarian" has been pejorative from its invention by the Greeks as a sneering put-down of non-Greeks. The word has no place in any historical writing that pretends to objectivity. Read the post-Romans Britons on the invading Anglo-Saxons, or the Anglo-Saxons on the invading Normans, or the Anglo-Normans on the French, ad infinitum. Barbarism is in the eye of the beholder. --Michael K. Smith 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, that with the foundation of Karakorum, they were no longer Nomadic, but dependant upon supplies. In Mongolian custom boys were dressed and named as girls, till passing their 7th year. Male children were less likely to survive (believed to be haunted by ghosts) due to the harsh living conditions. This led to the constant state of more women than men in the nomadic Mongolian society. No matter of gender, all were trained to handle weapons and 10%-20% of the original Mongolian armies consisted of the best women wielding weapons. Tribute improved the living conditions drastically and suddenly the death rate for male children changed based upon this. Genetic evidence shows hat 10% men in Mongolia have very similar genetic information (there is somewhere in article in scientific american, but i did not find it yet). it is calculated to have started 2 generatioons before Genghis Khan. so there was already a process of unification.

That Mongols were very attached by silk, as is mentioned here, had a practical reason. They wore it underneath their armour. If an arrow went through the armour into the body, his head was still covered by the strong fibres of the silk. he could be pulled out easily by pulling on the silk. The wound stayed also clean, so no infection was caused this was an important reason for Mongolian bravery. All others had to fear arrows, for it was difficult to get them out and often the wounds infected.

Wandalstouring 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

brutality of the Mongols could be considered in a different way. Slaughter one defended town brutally. everybody who thinks his defence is less good and could be the next target will pay. the more blood you shed, the higher is the tribute. If you take over the government, you can even get more tribute. The steppes had to be fed to improve the living conditions, horses grow stronger when they get grain and not only grass. This leads to an immense appetite.

Wandalstouring 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to take some issue with Kasreyn's assertion that any presentation of the Mongols as more than barbaric terrors is somehow attributable to modern "cultural sensitivity." In fact, Weatherford's book is merely a popularly written summary of DECADES of established research which is far better substantiated than the more simpleminded "barbarian" portrayals of the Mongols (many of which derive from european sources written long after the fact, and with a clear motive and goal of presenting a very ethno-centric and biased view. these are the same sort of sources that, if we didn't examine or challenge them, would have us believe things like Jews drinking infants blood on passover, or Arabs being derived from incestuous relations.) Point is, don't go saying that a well-supported source needs further backing, while your own particular "common knowledge" lacks adequate references of its own.

Someone seriously needs to clean up this article and make a more nuanced portrait of both the cultural and bureaucratic innovations the Mongols introduced and the brutality with which they punished nations and cities that refused to submit to them in tribute. I don't think anyone here is going to deny that, even for the times, the Mongol armies were capable of grevious destruction. But to pretend that that's the only basis, legacy, or historical import of the largest empire the world ever saw... well, that's just silly. Dave 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

cavalry

I'd just like to point out that the Mongol heavy cavalry did carry bows. In fact, all Mongol cavalrymen carried two bows, one for long-range fighting and one for short-range fighting. They also developed various specialized arrows for different tasks, including but not limited to incendiary arrows, heavy armor-piercing arrows, and fast short-range arrows.

Correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Your statement is backed by the Encyclopedia Britannica macropedia Article "Warfare, Conduct Of".

---

Hopefully somebody would be willing to sit down and do a complete re-write of this page. It's biased, self-contradictory, contains poor grammar, and quite frequently makes no sense. If a small child turned this in as a school project, they'd fail.

I started writing cavalry tactics and have some info about the Mongols collected there and in the discussion. the small bow was a composite recurve bow, while the big bow was a Buryatian longbow, the strongest bow ever. I don`t starte rewriting this article becasue there are likely to be some people who will protect these prejudices.

Wandalstouring 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Casualty figures

Does anyone have documentation for those casualty figures? They just seem high to me. 80 million is a lot of people. I mean, that's more than all the people that died in World War II. Granted, World War II took place in less than a decade, and the mongolian invasions took place over more than fifty years, but still... Apol0gies 17:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK it's correct. The Mongols decimated the populations of China and Russia. If a city surrendured, it would be pillaged, burnt, and its people dragged away into slavery. If it resisted, then when it fell, everyone in it was put to the sword. At least, this is what I read in the book "What If?", which is supposedly edited from essays by various historians. The Mongols waged possibly the most destructive campaign in history. Even Alexander the Great didn't cause so much carnage in his wake, preferring live subjects to hacked corpses. -Kasreyn

I'm getting sick of this. Whoever is putting "dubious" and "unsupported" on the casualty claims, come up with better figures, don't just wimp out. If not, I'm going to delete all mention of total casualty figures. It's better to have nothing than to have that gutted and unprofessional-looking section. It's obvious there are serious disagreements amongst the editors of this page about casualties of the Mongols. Well, work on it! Discuss it! I don't see any discussion, I just see people reverting and disputing figures without providing alternatives. That's not how to write an encyclopedia, and if we can't do better, we ought not to even bother with the casualty figures. --Kasreyn

I agree, the casualties are completely bunk. I already deleted them once, and someone put them back. I won't take issue with the Asian campaigns, since I can't speak to the medieval population there, but the European ones are surely too high. Those numbers destroy the credibility of the entire article. Look at the Battle of Muhi- this article lists 500,000 dead, yet the article on the actual battle lists only 40,000 dead. --YoungKracauer

---------- Agreed. At least provide some documentation to bolster the alternative explanation or argument. That will go very far in improving both the quality and credibility of Wiki articles.

Sure not for a single battle (which is 40-60,000 on the Magyar side). 500,000 is a minimal estimation (25%) for the whole Kingdom of Hungary. Other historians put the total number of casulaties to 1,000,000 out of the total 2,000,000.--fz22 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The article in German wiki about the Mongols is well researched. if anybody else can read it, do it.

Die Mongolen setzten Terror systematisch als psychologische Waffe ein. Normalerweise wurde der Oberschicht einer eroberten Stadt grundsätzlich der Wechsel in eine neue Gegend befohlen. Bei Ablehnung wurde die gesamte Stadtbevölkerung vertrieben oder auch massakriert (bis auf eine Handvoll Spezialisten); Stadt und umgebende Felder wurden niedergebrannt. Im 14. Jahrhundert errichteten sie Bauwerke aus Menschenknochen vor einer zerstörten Stadt als Wahrzeichen ihres Durchzuges. Dann ließen sie einige Überlebende entfliehen, um den Schrecken in der Umgebung zu verbreiten.

Translation:

The Mongols used terror systematically as psychological weapon. Normally the upper class of a conquered city was categorically orderd to leave in another area. In case of rejection, the whole population of the city was dispeled or also massacred (except a handfull of specialists); the town and surrounding fields were burnt down. In the 14th century they erected buildings of human bones in front of a destroyed town as a enblem of their passage. Then they let a few survivors escape to spread the horror in the neighborhood.

my opinion:

Papal intelligence reports about the Mongols in Russia state their usage of terror. The terrified population was employed for their own purposes, such as costly takings of castles. But there is no mentioning of excessive massacres. The labor that did not rebel was employed, killing them all made the conquest senseless. I suggest not to mention these casualty figures. They seem very exagerated for the population existing at all back then. Most likely a few brutally slayen make a myth of their own. Evidence would be a reseach of European church scripts, where marriages, births and deaths are noted. Wandalstouring 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This page needs some major rewriting

Just a few innacuracies...but i agree that there are MANY errors and contradictions

what immediately struck me

the mongols did not use entirely light cav...they used a contingent of very flexible heavy cav (lances,swords, bows) for breakthrough purposes just like other armies...once the massed archer fire had its cumulative effect

this article makes little reference to the famous use of mongolian feint and retreats...their used of "suicical" vanguards

as for the armor, a %age of the mongols used urine hardened leather armor, and it is believed (although i've yet to find some good sources) that some had armoured horses. Scale/lamillar armor might also have been used

the silk garments could not have miraculously reduced infection, those garments were rarely washed or replaced....what they predominantly did was allow the arrow to be extracted along its entry path, drastically reducing the added trauma of removing when they are simply ripped out. So this had a huge impact on surviving the arrow wound, providing infection didn't set in

also...how often did mongol troops face western knights? rarely

This was an unsigned post by User:Panzerjager88. Ben talk contr 07:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to face western knights when you can outmaneouver them on faster horses that have been better cared for.  ;) Just run rings around them shooting arrows into them until they're all dead. And yes, Mongol composite bows could - easily - penetrate Western armor. -Kasreyn

• Was it second to the British Empire in size or not? Could somebody check and correct the contradiction of first or second in the article? Are there references for that? Ben talk contr 07:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• It had the largest contiguous empire.

• Sure, but I suspect it was the largest in land area period. Consider the british empire and notice how all of canada upto the north pole is included even though hardly any europeans lived in all that space. The mongol empire map misses the northern strip of asia even though mongols were mindful of the lands there (similar to european exploration of the hudson bay) and actually had mongols (or mongoloid (not in the original federation)) living there. India is a huge chunk of land and is conspicuously excluded.

Mongol Trade Drizzit12 03:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Drizzit12 Another part of the Mongols that is not mentioned in the texts, I think, is the Mongolian influence on trade. The Mongols created safe land routes from East Asia to Europe. This led to the spread of the Black Plague and the killing of 1/3 of the population of Europe. This was a huge turn of events in history, yet I didn't see it mentioned is this article at all, although I could have missed it. Someone needs to add something on this topic because it is a major part of the Mongol legacy.

I can tell a lot of work has been done here, but this is one of the few Wiki articles that disappointed me. There's no overall statement in the beginning about who the famous conquering Mongols were. The ones under Genghis Khan. Just 2-3 sentences are needed, about who they were, when, how, why -- you know what I mean. Thnx. Athana 72.224.247.162 21:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical estimates of casualties

It's really interesting that the mongols killed 80 million people in the 1200's. Amazing really. Especially when there were only 300 million people on earth. Do those numbers seem INSANELY high to anyone else? --TheGrza 23:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, it was part of their "psychological warfare". They would send people ahead to spread terror and panic in front of them, it was part of their attack strategy. User:Orngjce223

The 80 million figure seems very high. After all Chairman Mao "only" caused around 30-40 million deaths during his reign and he had the benefit of modern technology. The 80 million figure only makes sense if stretched out over several centuries. One wonders where the documentation is for the figure. Enriquecardova 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this needs to be resolved. I don't see any valid source for these outrageous casualty figures, which dwarf those of the second world war and would amount to nearly a third of the total world population in 1200 AD. Even assuming subsequent famine is included in the totals (and it shouldn't be, since the timeline specifically states "in the assault"), it strains credulity, snaps it and dances all over it. It's deeply misleading, so unless someone posts convincing evidence (which doesn't exist) I'm axing it. Better no casualty estimates than grossly irresponsible casualty estimates. StarshipBistromath 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Map

I really think that at 300 pixels, you can't see the map very well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think all you really need to see is just where the red is. --Hottentot

Does anyone have the original of the map, or weare all bound to look at this horrible red line? Compay 00:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

While it's interesting, I think this new map doesn't read well at a small size. Maybe we can have both? In any case, the old map was very good for the fact that the outline gave the reader the ability to gauge the extent of the Mongol conquests at a glance, which is a useful historical aid. Kasreyn 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I just want to point out a few things.

1. Mongol usually recruit the beaten enemies to do their fighting (cannon folder?) Therefore, 20,000 Mongol may also mean + a few thousand press gang not counted as human, allies.
2. Mongol troops wipe out 80,000 Russian knight, similarly equipped as western knights. Mongol emphasise on fast manover mean they can enggage a few group of separated armies at the same time. The slow moving heavy knight would stand no chance even if the mongol let them put on their armour to fight. Most likely, the mongol would dash in before the knight is even ready with all their armour.
3. There are claims that Mongol even considering to depopulate the whole northern Chinese, as they found the number of Chinese they encounter as too many, before they were persuade to dropped the plan.
4. Among cities wipe out by mongol Urgenchi, Merv, Herat, Balkh, Bamian.Yosri 06:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of things wrong with what was previously written, under history the comment was made that what I wrote was "Bullshit". Try reading some scholarly articles (this means peer reviewed journals and books with university affiliations).

80.000 Russian knights would have wiped any European power. France had at max 4000 knights on the battlefield. Show me your sources. Wandalstouring 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on Current Mongol Culture

I removed this POV - "Contrary to the popular bias based on history, the Mongols of Mongolia, especially those the nomads, are regarded by most Westerners with first-hand knowledge as some of the kindest and warmest people in the world."

I'm sure the Mongols are great people. But this is opinion. I've heard this same thing said about dozens of tribes and nationalities about kindness and generosity. How can we rank the cultures of the world according to what culture is the warmest and kindest? Certainly a culture could be unusually generous or helpful by another culture's standards, but simple opinion without anything to back it up is not needed.

Perhaps some mention of how the Mongols are no longer a warlike tribe in any way shape or form, but I think the previous language is a bit too POV.

Well, I personally have noticed that the modern Mongols are very much like the Koreans in temperament. They seem to be rather "artistically minded" (what was the term for that? right-brained? left-handed?) and emotional, sort of like the stereotypical Southern European. They are generally very different from the Manchus and Japanese to the east, who seem much more calm-tempered and geared toward scientific and logical modes of thought. These peoples all look different, too; I mean, there is a visible difference in the physical characteristics of the average Mongol, Korean, Manchu, Japanese, and other East Asian nationalities that makes me think that these groups have not interbred extensively for a very long time. If I had to say which ones looked most similar to one another, I would again have to say that the Mongols and Koreans share a certain resemblance, what with their well-developed jaws and epicanthic folds and just generally large, round faces with a very poorly developed mental eminence (i.e., they have weak chins). The Manchus and Japanese tend to have a much less extreme (less exotic?) appearance, with well-defined noses and chins and generally longer faces. The Japanese are the only one of these four groups that have a tendency to have large eyes, rather like the Chinese. The Mongols, Manchus, and Koreans all seem to have itty bitty little eyes, and in the case of the Mongols, the iris is sometimes blue or green in color.

So, anyway, maybe it is that extra "emotionality" or "warmth" that people are trying to indicate when they say that the Mongols are so kind, warm, generous, etc. I think people who have only heard about the Mongols through the histories of other nations who despised them tend to be surprised when they actually meet the Mongols and find that they are rather warm-hearted softies. Ebizur 17:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

---

You might wanna add Mongolia is a growing tourist desitnation (it's getting quite big) and that Chinese investment is bringing Mongolia into the modern world (they built a power plant etc.) is there a mention of the Chinese-inner-mongolia area? when your on the trans-siberian express is can take hours to wade through the paper work required to go from China to Mongolia.

peace, A

_________

Completely rewrote the Monogl Empire section of the page using scholarly sources. Most of the stuff there was just plain wrong and it needed to be done.

== Anachronisms ==

It is tempting to judge people of the past and what they did when it insults our values, but it does not change what they did or thought. You cannot denounce their values as being wrong based on ours.

Disputed

The four places listed in Persia with casualties over 1,000,000 do not even show up in Islamic and Persian Timelines (two that I checked) for the period around 1221. Wikipedias own city article indicates that only Rome had a population of over 1,000,000 until the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s. We have to have verifiable sources for numbers like this. 6,000,000 people dying in one year in Iran in four battles? Can anyone provide even one website that can even come close to verifying these numbers?

No city in Iran would have had anywhere near as people as these numbers indicate in those years. Unless we had 500,000 Mongols or more dying in each of these battles or more, these numbers seem highly exaggerated. Can anyone provide "verifiable" numbers on these battles, the cities, and the years? Thanks, Model Citizen 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a question for you. How can anything predating modern recordkeeping and scientific method be "verified", ever? Doesn't that require some sort of lowering of standards due to the lack of trustworthy documentation? -Kasreyn

Usually paylists of soldiers (often individually listed) are the most accurate way of determining real troop strength. It is therefore commonly used in science to verify numbers and is even conserved for several Medieval armies. Historians usually exagerated numbers. There is proof by comparing differnt sources on the same event and the mentioned paylists. Such lists also exist for other items like food supply or horse`s values made prior to combat. Knights often lost their horses in battle and received compensation based upon their estimated value.

Wandalstouring 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Muhi

It must be mentioned here! Don't you think? Three main Mongol army was send to conquer Europe: 1, Kajdu (son of Csagatáj) and Bajdar - toward Western-Galitia and Silezia 2, Batu (son of Dzsocsi) to conqer Hungary and Buda 3, Kadan (son of Ögödej) - toward Transilvania

The Mongols returned in 1242, not 1241...--fz22 07:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Very odd. I've heard it called the Battle of "Mohatch" (don't know the spelling, working off pronunciation). Is that the Hungarian name for it?

No, that is another battle, aganst the Ottomans ... This one is called Muhi or Mohi in Hungarian--fz22 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, it definitely deserves mention as it was one of Subutai's most brilliant victories. To win two such crushing victories in two days with two armies, separated by mountains unfamiliar to him, rivals Attilla at Cannae. He (Subutai, not Attilla), is the great unsung military genius of history. -Kasreyn 11:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I have included a section on Mongol warfare with a reference to the great field commander to address those concerns as well as round out the article. Since the Mongols spent so much time fighting, it seemed reasonable to do so.

Enriquecardova 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Article focus

This article duplicates much of the information at Mongol Empire. Details of Mongol hisotry should appear in the relevant articles while this article should focus on more on the Mongols as a people and not just rehash the Mongol Empire article. LuiKhuntek 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to last article editor

In the future, please use the edit summary. I nearly reverted you for suspected vandalism, then I checked and saw that Tsakhiagiyn is no longer Prime Minister. That sort of confusion can be easily avoided by explaining the reason for your change(s) in the edit summary. That way we won't waste time at cross-purposes when we can be working together to improve the article. Thanks!! -Kasreyn 05:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

to Khoikhoi:

Please read the article on the gentleman whose picture you have restored. It says he is no longer Prime Minister. Unfortunately I can't seem to find a picture of the new PM on wikipedia, or I would have added it. Can you help us out with that? Best wishes, -Kasreyn 06:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It doesn't matter if he's no longer the prime minister. He's still a famous Mongol. See other ethnic group articles, like Han Chinese. --Khoikhoi 08:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware he was famous. I thought he had only been included because of his office. Fine by me then! -Kasreyn 00:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 128.6.176.14

Reverted by me as the addition was not in conformity with the real subject matter of the page. --Bhadani 15:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't thinking very clearly when I edited that

the huns

its not true that Huns were a 100% Mongol, as we know Hunns were Mongol-Turkic-Caucassian nomadic tribe

please correct it

Idiotic comment

When I came past the article said this: "GOD DAMN MONGOLIANS ALWAYS HAVE TO TEAR DOWN MY CITY WALL"

I can't believe this childish comment is supposed to be here, so I'm removing it.

Big Mac 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I think that's a quote from "South Park," when the owner of the chinese restaraunt is hired to build a wall around the town, which is promptly beseiged by Mongolian raiders. Totally irrelevant, of course, but made me laugh thinking about someone actually going to the trouble of putting that in here!Dave 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The origin and history of Mongols before Ghengis Khan

I am surprised to find out there is very little mention of the origin and history of the Mongols in the article. It is as if the history of the Germans began with Charlemenge. Perhaps the history part should be written as something like this:

1. The Dong Hu Domination
2. Split into various smaller groups under pressure of the Huns
3. The emergence of Xin Bei from Dong Hu and the Northern Dynasties and Tang Dynasty
4. The emergence of Khitan and Shi Wei in later Tang Dynasty from Xin Bei
5. The emergence of Mongol from Shi Wei and the founding of the Yuan Dynasty

Karolus

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.128.225.41 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 20 April 2006.

I don't agree with the above person at all. It looks like based on Chinese resources which are twisted to show Mongols were Chinese. I read many historical books in Mongolian and in English and concluded that origins of Mongols is Huns whose empire was very influential during Modun Shanyu's time. Mongols were never Chinese, they were neighbors all the time. That's why China built Great Wall to protect its neighbor Mongols. First the great wall was erected during Hunnu empire time-Mongols' first empire and later Chinae renovated and rebuilt the Great Wall again. That was the border of the two countries and during history, borders changed and now the Great Wall is in the heart of China.

Another thing is someone kept putting Chinese ethnic group table to this article. That table belong to Chinese article not to Mongols. Mongols themselves are a nationality. Please read more before trying to look intelligent and obstruct other people's edits. It will be more helpful of contribution on contents based on facts rather than just putting table. If you check carefully that table Koreans for example linked to only Korean Chinese, i.e. if that table is worth putting you'd better first edit the table linking the Chinese table's Mongols to Mongolian Chinese article. Placing Chinese ethnic groups table in Mongols article rejects all Mongols including Mongols worlwide and Mongols in independent country Mongolia who don't reside in China. Lemonhead 14:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You got it all wrong Lemonhead. Chinese source including the Manchus and Korean source alsways stated that Mongols were Da Zi , i.e. barbarians, who were different from the civilized ones like Han, Korean, Japanese and Manchu. Chinese sources tended to look at the Mongols as illiterate horseman who drink and fight all the time, until the Mongols became Buddhist gradually in the 14th to 16th centuy. Chinese historical books has documented the Mongols since the North-South dynasty and is a lot more reliable than other sources, including the Mongol source which traced only as far back as 11th century.

China's various states first bulit Great Wall to guard against each others, and this started way back to 700 BCE in the Spring-Autumn Period which predated the birth of Mongols as separate ethnic group.

The modern concept and idea nationality did not exist in the mind of East Asians until late 19th century. It has always been civilization (i.e. Confucist/Buddhist/Taoist) vs barbarinism, and for nomands we had confederations rather than nationality. Mongol and Khitan were part of the XianBei confederations, and they originated from Dong Hu (Tungus). The Xiong Nu (Honu in old Chinese, i.e. Huns) were related to but separate confederaion from Donghu.

Khitan and other Dong Hu people including Xian Bei and Wu Huan (or Wu Wan in old Chinese) spoke proto-Mongolic. Khitan's descendents the Ben still used words similar to Mongolians.

Huns' language is Altaic and but scholars are not sure whether it can be classified as Turkic nor Mongolic. I speculate it could be a in-between language, kind of like Baltic language played in the role of Germanic and Slavic relationship. Huns Empire was not the first Mongol Empire as you claimed.

Manchu language is Tungustic and differ from Mongols.

I am a Mongol-Manchu by fresh and blood and I do see myself as Chinese. As a mater of fact, I see myself as a very traditional Old Beijing-Tianjin Northern Chinese with upper class gentry background. We still use Mongol alphabet in China, whereas in Mongolia Republic they use Russian alphabet. I have bestowed to Buddha in Tibetan Buddhist Temple in Beijing as child. I still do Boke exercise everyday. I am a direct descendent of Kublai Khan and my ancestors had always held office positions in both Ming and Qing courts.

Remember, we Mongols are the excellent builders of Great Empires, be it founded by Mongols (Yuan), Han-Turkic (Ming), Manchus (Qing) or even Slavs (Russia and Soviet Union - Lenin was Mongol on his paternal grandfather side although he was 3/4 European).

Karolus 2006/10/12

"Mongols" is the name for both a nationality and an ethnic group. This article here describes the ethnic group, as is clearly stated in the introduction. Many people of that ethnic group happen to live in China today, so removing that navbox is wrong and misleading. You might instead want to create an analog navbox "ethnic groups of Mongolia", and include both.

As to the history of the mongols before Genghis Khan, that seems to be a difficult topic with very few reliable sources. I agree that the list given by the IP above is not very helpful, as most of the items have little to do with the mongols. The problem is that very little is actually known. Britannica for example thinks that "their origin is unknown" [1]. Apart from that, they offer some educated speciulation ([2] and [3]). Maybe that's a start, but we still need other sources to cross-check. --Latebird 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is talking about both the nation and ethnic group. Otherwise, if it is only talking about ethnic group, there shouldn't be Genghis Khan. If you'd like to distinguish the two you'd better to create separate article. Britannica lacks information on Mongols.

If you'd like to put the Chinese table, please put in the article Chinese ethnic group not in Mongols. Lemonhead 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question why Genghis Khan is mentioned here. Thinking about it more carefully, this article really seems to be missing its topic. Large parts of the text just repeat what is already written in the History of Mongolia series. Those parts should probably be deleted, (or moved to one of the history articles if the information isn't there yet). What do we actually know about the ethnic group of the mongols that we could write here instead? --Latebird 09:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea. If you see the first chapter of History of Mongols that tells us who are the origins of Mongols. People's DNA is 99.99% identical. All humans differ by only 0.01% of their DNA to each other. Some anthropologists consider that the first people were created or appeared in Africa and moved to all directions, although some others consider that people evolved in Africa, Asia, Europe and moved and settled other places, in our case, in the Secret History of Mongols it says that Genghis Khan's ancestors came from North West and settled on Mongolian area. If we just try to see ethnic group of Mongols we either have to trace all successful or unsuccessful Mongols on world level, or simply have to say Mongols are people who have nomadic hunter ancestors who raise livestock. Please check Ainu people for your reference, if you want to come out with ethnic group topic. However, I think it is better to keep the Mongols both for ethnic group and nation of Mongols together agreeing with the fellow who wrote below. Lemonhead 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationality and ethnic group article

Please let this article be both for the nation and the ethnic group. For as many mongols as I know these two entities are intertwined. I'm a Hazara and any Hazara mindful of being ethnic Mongol also identifies himself in the nation. I understand there are differences, the mongol nation was established by Genghis Khan (should really be spelled Chingis Khan) which did not originally include the Buryat and Tangut mongol ethnic groups (correct me if I'm wrong) while squarely including some turkic groups early on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.197.228.3 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with you. It is better to keep the article for both the nation and the ethnic group. About ethnic group, I think nation consists of ethnic groups and for broader sense Mongols mean both nationality and ethnic group. If we imagine borderless world, whom we can identify ourselves with? Lemonhead 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think two different subjects should be treated in the same article, even if they are very closely related. If they both have a distinct definition, then two distinct articles should be created. In our case here, the term "Nationality" also means quite different things to different people. The standard definition used in Wikipedia goes like this: nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. I hope we can agree that this specific aspect is covered sufficiently in the article Mongolia. As soon as we leave this narrow definition, the meaning of the word will quickly become ambiguous. In many contexts, "nationality" is actually used as a synonym for "ethnic group". I'm not sure what other definition could make sense in the case of people like the Hazara. What do you suggest there? --Latebird 12:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongols ethnic group is broader than the nation itself, since Mongols and Mongolian origined people reside all over the world mainly because of Mongol Empire established by Genghis Khan and his successors' conquests and the left people abroad to govern the places. By this, Mongol nation becomes a part of the Mongols ethnic group subject. I think Hazaras should be included in Mongols too since Hazaras have Mongol origin. Lemonhead 00:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly is this "Mongol nation", if not the national state of Mongolia? --Latebird 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You yourself put the Nationality description at the above. So why are you asking what you wrote? Question from yourself? You don't understand what you wrote Lemonhead 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my words. I wrote that the word "nationality" is ambiguous, and mentioned several possible definitions. What I'm asking is which definition YOU are using. Don't try to evade that question by turning it back at me. --Latebird 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

List of ethnic groups

Why are Evenks and Kazakhs listed as Mongols? The former are of Tungusic origin, the latter are Turkic peoples. --Latebird 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tungus is one of Mongols' ethnic group if you read old Mongol books, Turkic and Mongols are the Huns together with the same origin. Lemonhead 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any scientific research that considers the tungusic, turkic, and mongol ethnic groups to be one and the same. Please provide verifiable sources that support your theory (just telling me to "read some books" is not good enough). --Latebird 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they are one and same. Lemonhead 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the article you list tungusic and turkic people as Mongols, which is equivalent to saying they are the same. And just a few lines above you explicitly stated that "Tungus is one of Mongols' ethnic group". Please provide verifiable sources that confirm those assumptions. --Latebird 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (PS: Please chose a different indentation level when you reply to someone else's statements, so that the readers can easily see who said what.)

I didn't list as Tungusic and Turkic people = Mongols but as ethnic group of Mongols. It looks like you are not familiar with the subject and you are not capable of contributing on knowledge level, therefore, you are either chase your own tail or try to find any trivial reasons to use against me as personal grugde. If you are knowledgeable enough, why don't you contribute your own contribution to the article rather than either adding unrelevant table or wikifying them. When I enter into this discussion I understood that you wanted to write a separate article or to contribute, but nothing happened except you try to find mistakes in my addition while you don't understand what you are writing yourself. If you feel not comfortable with the article why don't you bring you own contribution. I don't see any of your contribution since the discussion began. Lemonhead 12:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking of you is that you provide sources for your controversial contributions. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is an official Wikipedia policy and must be followed by all editors. I actually thought it was polite to ask about this in the discussion. Alternatively I could have just removed your edits as unsourced. Which do you prefer? Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Any other editor can ask you to provide sources if they don't understand your contributions, and you can ask the same in return. --Latebird 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll provide the sources when I find time to research hopefully soon, I read about those somewhere before. Lemonhead 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

in Mongolia we don't usually consider kazakhs being an ethnic group of mongolians, using the term "undesten" (nation) instead. Tungusic people (Evenks, "Khamnigan" in Mongolian) described by "yastan", which can be translated, though not exactly, as a "tribe". The Tuvans (Uriankhai) also considered "yastan". In our view Evenks and Tuvans living in Mongolia are a part of Mongol ethnos. Its more about living together, having similar customs and system of beliefs, which is considered to belonging to mongolian ethnos, rather than speaking tungusic, turkic or mongolic language. Its quite impossible to define Mongols by the means of western "fraseology" because people here live and define themselves by their own standards, not western. The terms "nationality", "ethnos", "tribe" are virtually unknown to common people not interested in western politology.

illustration caption vandalism

Could anyone revert/correct this editorial vandalism in the caption of Mongol ruler illustrations? "Due to a certain reason"? What does that mean? Whatever the argument between these two editors, it's not helpful to those of us seeking information:

This is not vandalism I don't think Elbegdorj belongs here, due to a certain reason, which had an irreversible negative effect on Mongols, Lemmonhead you have no right to impose your will on this page, I'm just making correction

Hello 68.160.52.63 or 68.226.23.44 The Photos were put by another user, not by me to the article long time ago if you check the history. Therefore, your accusation that I am imposing my will as putting back Tsakhiagiyn Elbegdorj's photo is not correct.

In my knowledge from media, the only famous Mongols in the world are appropriately illustrated in the article. I fight for my belief. From modern day Mongols, Tsakhiagiyn Elbegdorj is the most visible by his contribution to the fight for personal liberty and fairness worldwide. Also, he is a revolutionary who brought democracy to Mongolia and gave possibilities for Mongols worldwide to connect Mongols in Mongolia. If you are not familiar with the subject, please check google news and other news media resources. Latest news I saw this week about Mongols contribution worldwide is Tsakhiagiyn Elbegdorj rallied with Burmese against Burma's tyranny outside Burmese Embassy in Washington DC on May 17, 2006. [4] Lemonhead 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

prejudiced

This article is not objective and fair about Mongols, especially in regard of their history. They are depicted as brute, stupid and bloodthirsty monsters. Wandalstouring 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all East Asian, West Asian, and European ethnic groups, who are in almost all cases the ones who have recorded the history of the Mongols, have always considered them to be brutish, stupid, and bloodthirsty monsters. Therefore, it is rather difficult to construct an article about the Mongols that does not portray them as such. Ebizur 14:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of this East Asian, West Asian and European ethnic groups have been also considered brutish, stupid, and bloodthirsty monsters by their neighbours or other ethnic groups in contact:). In fact people like to be derogatory against each other. It gives them self-confidence:) Mongolian historic scripts where destroyed by chinese Ming dinasty, in an attempt to falsificate the history.

And sometimes the preacher tells the truth and it hurts. Childe Roland of Gilead 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

rewriting this article

I suggest to translate the German articles about Mongols and put them here into discussion. They are much more neutral and have interesting facts listed. This article here is almost impossible to corrrect. It is a big piece of "vandalism". Wandalstouring 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

German article/ will be translated

Mongolen aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche Vier Minderheitensprachen auf dem chinesischen 1-Yuan-Schein: Mongolisch, Tibetisch, Uighurisch und Zhuang vergrößern Vier Minderheitensprachen auf dem chinesischen 1-Yuan-Schein: Mongolisch, Tibetisch, Uighurisch und Zhuang

Mit dem Begriff Mongolen werden im engeren Sinne die eigentlichen Mongolen (Eigenbezeichung: Monggol) verstanden, die man sprachlich grob in Ost- und Westmongolen gliedern kann. Im weiteren Sinne werden darunter auch die mongolischen Völker verstanden, also Völker, die eine mongolische Sprache sprechen. Diese haben in der Regel andere Eigenbezeichnungen.

Siehe auch: Goldene Horde Inhaltsverzeichnis [Verbergen]

   * 1 Namensherkunft
   * 2 Heutige mongolische Ethnien
   * 3 Mongolen in China
   * 4 Weblinks
   * 5 Siehe auch

[Bearbeiten]

Namensherkunft

Der Name "Monggol" stammt aus den tungusischen Sprachen und bedeutete ursprünglich "die Unbesiegbaren". Einst auf einen kleinen unbedeutenden Volksstamm am mittleren Onon angewandt, wurde der Name unter Dschingis Khan im 13. Jahrhundert zur übergreifenden Volksbezeichnung. [Bearbeiten]

Heutige mongolische Ethnien

In den verschiedenen Staaten, in denen Angehörige mongolischer Völker und Ethnien leben, werden die Trennlinien zwischen "Stamm" und "Volk" sehr unterschiedlich gezogen. In dem Land mit der größten mongolischen Bevölkerung, der Volksrepublik China, werden alle Mongolen als ein Volk betrachtet. Tümed-, Chahar, Ordos-, Bargut-, Burjat- und Oirat-Mongolen zählen alle zum einen Volk der Mongolen (蒙古族 Menggu zu). Daneben gibt es noch weitere Völker, die mongolische Sprachen sprechen, und zwar die:

   * Daur,
   * Tu,
   * Dongxiang,
   * Bonan und ein Teil der
   * Yugur.

Sie zählen aber - wie gesagt - nicht zur Nationalität der Mongolen sondern sind als eigenständige Nationalitäten anerkannt.

Im Staat Mongolei zählen zu den Ostmongolen die:

   * Chalcha,
   * Uriankhai und die
   * Burjaten; zu den Westmongolen zählen die:
   * Oiraten, die vor allem im Altai leben.

In Russland gehören die

   * Burjaten in Burjatien zu den Ostmongolen; zu den Westmongolen zählen die
   * Oiraten im russischen Altai und die
   * Kalmücken am Nordufer des Kaspischen Meeres.

Verstreut lebende mongolische Völker sind z.B. die Moghol, Hazara und Aimak in Afghanistan und Pakistan. [Bearbeiten]

Mongolen in China

Beim Zensus im Jahre 2000 wurden in China 5.813.947 Mongolen (im Sinne der obigen Definition) gezählt. Die Mongolen Chinas verteilen sich wie folgt auf die Autonomen Gebiete und Provinzen:

   * 68,72%: Autonomes Gebiet Innere Mongolei,
   * 11,52%: Provinz Liaoning,
   * 2,96%: Provinz Jilin,
   * 2,92%: Provinz Hebei,
   * 2,58%: Uigurisches Autonomes Gebiet Xinjiang,
   * 2,43%: Provinz Heilongjiang,
   * 1,48%: Provinz Qinghai,
   * 1,41%: Provinz Henan,
   * 5,98%: Rest Chinas.

Neben dem Autonomen Gebiet Innere Mongolei auf Provinzebene, gibt es in China noch weitere mongolische autonome Verwaltungsgliederungen. Diese sind auf Bezirksebene:

   * Autonomer Bezirk Haixi der Mongolen und Tibeter,
   * Mongolischer Autonomer Bezirk Bayingolin,
   * Mongolischer Autonomer Bezirk Bortala.

Auf Kreisebene sind es:

   * Autonomer Kreis Weichang der Manju und Mongolen,
   * Autonomer Kreis Harqin Linker Flügel der Mongolen,
   * Autonomer Kreis Fuxin der Mongolen,
   * Autonomer Kreis Vorderer Gorlos der Mongolen,
   * Autonomer Kreis Dorbod der Mongolen,
   * Autonomer Kreis Subei der Mongolen,
   * Autonomer Kreis He'nan der Mongolen,
   * Mongolischer Autonomer Kreis Hoboksar.

[Bearbeiten]

Weblinks

   * Ethnische Minderheiten in Xinjiang - Die mongolische Nationalität (chinesische Regierungsseite auf Deutsch)
   * The Mongolian ethnic minority (chinesische Regierungsseite auf Englisch)

[Bearbeiten]

Siehe auch

   * Geschichte der Mongolen
   * Mongolischer Schamanismus
   * Mongolische Literatur

Russian king

In the History section:

"Genghis Khan first sent 100 traders with animal goods to a small country's king which was inside today's Russian territory with a decree that said those were traders. However, the Russian king ordered those Mongol traders killed, robbed their camels and goods, and sent back a few survivors cutting their beard-which was the biggest humiliation of that time's Mongol culture."

This was a king whose country is today within the boundaries of Russia. Was he Russian, though?

First of all this is vague, who was this "king" or of what piece of land in the Rus was he "king"? The ruler of the Rus was the rurik and he had several semiindependant local rulers. I guess this refers to one of these. Mongols did gether intelligence about the Russians, like the Russians about the Mongolians. Most likely sth like this happened someday someplace, but it was no reason for war and the reaction of the rurik of the Rus was surely not crazy humilitation of innnocent foreigners (members of the mighty and aggressive military superpower next door).

The invasion had long before been planed by the Mongolian commanders in chief. The Russian military was neither lazy and had equipped enough light cavalry with bows to stand their ground against the Mongols. They were the first ones to do this succesfully in a ranged fight. That is the reason for the use of sth. considered totally crazy before in the battle of Kalka. It was using light cavalry with lances for attack. If Russian heavy troops had not been left behind, this charge had been suicide.

Russia today covers a large part of the Mongolian Empire. It would be very useful if you used exact names not this somewhere, someday, someone, somehow managed to upset an innocent man by shaving his beard. Does anybody know what I am talking about?

Wandalstouring 00:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The name "Mongol" is an archaic term

This article is confusing. Generally, the name "Mongols" is used to refer to the various Turco-Mongol tribes that comprised the Mongol Empire under Chingis Khan and his successors.

Today, the descendants of the Mongols are called "Mongolian."

This article should be devoted to only the Mongols of the Chingis Khan era, including his descendants, the Kublaids.--Buzava 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Genetic evidence shows that 2 generations prior to the expansion of Chingis Khan a process of unification must have taken place. 10% of Mongolian men (in the Mongolian republic) have identical Y chromosome-DNA with mutations dating back to this time. This incident is very unusual and indicates a stronger reproduction of a specific person or y-chromosome identical group. Via the natural mutation rate it could be tracked in time (there is an article in nature about it). Due to environmental influence of the harsh live in the steppes, there were always more women than men of the same age. It is also reflected in specific ancient Mongolian customs of denying male gender until reaching an age secure of the highly fatal (mostly for male children) childhood illnesses. During the times of Chingis Khan the name Mongol was established for a number of united tribes, sharing common traits of Eurasien steppe cultures.

I think it is a good idea to make clear what we are talking about:

the Mongols at the times of Chingis Khan

all of todays Mongolian ethnies (not all were part of the ancient empire)

Wandalstouring 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Those genetic markers seem to exist in 8% of men all over continental Asia, so the most likely origin is Genghis himself, not "two generations prior". I don't think we have genetic material from the time, so the evidence can't point to a specific generation anyway. I agree with the motion to focus on the historic mongols here. We also should concentrate on the ethnicity, and avoid duplication of the history of the Mongol Empire here. --Latebird 06:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The article says it must have definetly started 2 generations before Ghenghis and he is not the origin of this spread. This was based upon scientific data of the chromosomal mutation rate. I can only quote what I know.

The chromosomes have a certain probability to mutate within a specific time. The larger the sample of chromosomes to examine, the more certain a valid statement can be made in how much time they mutated from an identical version. It is a standard method in biology.

8% of all men over continental Asia sharing common genetic markers does not seem to be the same.

Mongol influence was not equally strong throughout the continent and it is doubtable that a single mans offspring had that fertility. You have to keep in mind that there exist specific regional markers. They are shared within a group of people and have a lesser degree of appearance outside this group. If such a local group spreads its influence, mostly with male invaders, their specific markers are exported. Usually they can be found in lesser concentration than in the original population. A well known example is the spread of the blood types A (one A type has origin in Europe) and B (origin in Asia) between Europe and Asia, showing the degree of each others genetic influence. So shared markers of "8% of men all over continental Asia" does refer to the genetic spread of a group, possibly the Mongols and other nomadic warriors. But it does have nothing to do with the spread of an identical y-chromosome and its mutations in 10% of a local population (inhabitants of Mongolia).

In a biography it was mentioned that the granfather of Temudjin (later called Ghenghis) had already achieved a unification, but it broke apart. I don`t know whether it is a myth, but further inquiry would be useful. At least genetics seem to support this statement. Wandalstouring 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We may or may not be referring to the same effect. Here's my source anyway: Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies

Your statement was wrong. Read your own source. It says sth. totally different than you did. Ghenghis Khan as origin of the spread is an assumption made without scientific evidence. Logic makes it quite clear that he must have played an important role for this incident. But there is a molecular clock to be used (read the second page).

"An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today."

And to make you really feel bad, I quote another part about the molecular clock:

"In this particular instance, the lineage originated 1,000 years ago. The authors aren't saying that the genetic mutations defining the lineage originated with Khan, who was born around 1162; they are more likely to have been passed on to him by a great great grandfather."

The Germans say: "Wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil." (The one who can read is definetly in advantage.) Please tell me, how it was ever possible to doubt my statement, based upon this source?

This source even dates the origin of the spread 4 generations prior to Ghenghis. Wandalstouring 11:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Even when you "can read", some critical thinking is still in order. It is not my source that makes me doubt your statement, but common sense. A "nearly identical y-chromosome" hints at a single ancestor, not just at the normal exchange between friendly tribes. And this ancestor (as well as his sons and grandsons) must have produced a huge number of offspring all over the affected geographical area. This was not the case for Genghis' grandfather, but only for himself and his children.

The National Geographic page was just the first related link I found, and it's not a hard scientific source. It doesn't explain how they arrived at the 1000 year figure, so we have to be careful about just believeing it. This source confirms my suspicion that this "genetic clock" isn't quite as accurate as you seem to believe. They give a time range of 800-1200 years, which looks much more realistic, and includes Genghis lifetime. --Latebird 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

what about better sources?

"Genghis Khan lived from 1162-1227 and raped and pillaged from Mongolia to the gates of Vienna. Once he captured a village or town, he would essentially kill all the men and rape the women." This statement is simply wrong. The Mongols did keep records who was a descendant of Ghenghis Khan. It is not about 8% of their male population. Wandalstouring 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And talking about using the brain. A woman has no interest in the sexual contact with the male during a rape. So it is a random time of her fertility when the sexual intercourse takes place. The chances for her getting pregnant are limited. In polygamy the women often chose their time for intercourse to produce offspring effectively. Rape is also nothing limited to high ranking officers, so mass rape does not produce a single man`s offspring but an armys offspring and this is not identical in y-chromosomes. The research is based upon a specific group. Furthermore this offspring must be integrated into the culture of its producer.

If any of these biologists dared to read Mongolian history in wikipedia, he would notice that from 800-1200 there were also the Kitan, in China known as the Liao dynasty. The Chinese Emperor did have an organized harem that could be employed for mass reproduction. But hitting Ghenghis pays off. Who cares about Chinese or Mongolian history. As I mentioned Ghenghis is mentioned to be a descendant of a big unifying ruler Qabul Khan. His family had struggled for several generations to unite the people and Qabul Khan was sucessful until defeated by a Chinese-Tartarian union, sending Mongolia into civil war afterwards. Wandalstouring 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What about maintaing a civil tone in a discussion?

And what about providing any sources of your own? --Latebird 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? your sources prove me 100% and provide all info needed. This Ghenghis Khan claim is scientifically not verified in any of your sources. That is imagination, but sells. No source uses Mongolian history to a great deal to determine what was really going on during the timeframe they refer to. I did not mind to tell you, that you could simply read it in English and German wiki. Wandalstouring 17:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? Where did I claim there was scientific proof that Genghis is the sole originator of said y-chromosome? There can't be any until his body is found (unlikely to happen). But he is still the most likely candidate, for the common sense reasons given. Without him those genes would never have found the enormous geographic distribution as they have.

You present yourself as an expert on the "genetic clock" you introduced to the discussion. Refusing to back that up with sources damages your credibility. The link you posted to my user talk page is too general to be of much use. For example, I'd like to learn more about how it can be shown that this clock ran at the same speed a thousand years ago as it runs today. Since the succession of generations was much shorter then than it is today, this seems rather unlikely to me.

I would also like to see scientific sources to prove your assertion that an imbalance between boys and girls led to the dominance of one single y-chromosome. You might want to consider that such an imbalance was present not just in Mongolia but in all the steppe areas of central asia, and for much longer than just a few generations before Genghis. And as a final note, other Wikipedia articles don't count as sources. --Latebird 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You lack any knowledge about the subject, but discuss it. Try "Prinzipien der Biochemie" 3-8274-0325-1. I do not want to type whole chapters about genetics several times. I explained the clock once to you, I explained its principle and how you can determine time with it. In the links I gave you, there is explained how it passes on. Read first talk later. This gender proportion is a common trait of the living conditions in the steppes. The basics for the enrichement of an y-chromosome are fertile female avaiable to reproduce a single y-chromosom bearers offspring. I hope you understand that. This enrichment did not take place among other ethnic groups with the same living conditions, including the gender proportion. It is not an imbalance between boys and girls it is based upon living conditions in an environment and that is the outcome. A similar effect with different origin can be watched in Ireland due to Y-chromosome mutation of the earliest settlers. I am searching a source you can hopefully once fully read and than understanding is much easier. You can read wiki articles and quote their sources.

And never forget, being male descendant of Ghenghis Khan was recorded in Mongolian society and does not include 8% of the population.

The custom of raising as girls varies. here the shift is done with 4 years. http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/Mongolia/Local_Customs-Mongolia-R-1.html I don t know whther there is an online source avaiable I talked with a specialist on Mongols and Mongolian culture about it. If he can give me a good text, you get it, but READ it.

Wikipedia articles must be understood by non-experts. This means that discussion by non-experts is a necessary component of quality control. If you fail to explain things so that someone like me can understand them, then the resulting article will be useless. You don't need to provide sources for me, you need to provide them for Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for the relevant policy.

Please also read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comments like You lack any knowledge and Read first, talk later are completely out of line. Maybe you should instead try to actually understand my questions? --Latebird 06:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding does not seem to be based upon intellect. You have shown in this discussion that you do not fully read what you quote. Not fully reading an article makes it usually harder to understand. It was me first using gender imbalance, well this does not exist, because there is no balance. Wandalstouring 10:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you now saying that you wrote nonsense into the article about something that doesn't exist? How exactly is that supposed to improve your position? --Latebird 11:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading really doesn`t seem to be your concern? I said I made a mistake. It was in the discussion and I corrected it. If it was in the article I would have written so and corrected it. The mentioned mistake was an inappropriate word, not a mistake in content.Wandalstouring 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

I am going to remove the section in the article that contains the following claim: The unusual proportion of genders in the small populations of the steppes seems to have encouraged the genetic enrichment of a man's or akin group's Y-chromosome. As far as I can tell, this is highly speculative, and probably Original Research. If you want to add it again, then you must provide sources that explain why a gender imbalance (= "unusual proportion of genders") is supposed to lead to the dominance of a single y-chromosome in a population. General literature about biochemistry or genetics is not enough. We need a verifiable scientific source to confirm exactly the specific statement made. --Latebird 12:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything related to the effect of the unusual proportion of sexes (not genders, we are speaking biology here) on the frequency of Y chromosomes. Here is the paper that describes the unusually high incidence of the particular Y-chromosome lineage [5]. They trace it back to Genghis Khan and his direct male descendants, whose high social stature allowed them to father many more sons and facilitated the spread of the lineage. PS note that the paper refers not only to the modern mongol population. The particular haplotype of the Y chromosome is shared by 8% of all Asians. --Peter Z.^Talk 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the original source, my quick search only brought up secondary and tertiary material. Now that all the facts are on the table, I actually don't think that the story is even relevant to this article at all. It is already explained in Genghis Khan#Modern descendants and Descent from Genghis Khan, which should be plenty enough. The proportion of sexes also isn't specific to the mongol ethnicity. It may be better mentioned in Demographics of Mongolia (adding a historical section). The custom of dressing boys as girls probably belongs to Culture of Mongolia. --Latebird 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My computer had hardware failure and so I could not contribute.

Before discussion I will quote some sentences from the article mentioned above.

Thank you for correcting me, it is sexes not genders.

It was found in 16 populations throughout a large region of Asia, stretching from the Pacific to the Caspian Sea, and was present at high frequency: ∼8% of the men in this region carry it, and it thus makes up ∼0.5% of the world total.

This does not say "The particular haplotype of the Y chromosome is shared by 8% of all Asians." But it is estimated that about 16 million men carry it out of a total of 200 million men in the researched region. So it can not include all groups of this former Empire, especially not Southern Han-Chinese. Estimating from population statistics the area is likely to include Central Asia, Sibiria, Mongolia, some northern and western Chinese provinces and perhaps Korea. The example of the Hazaras shows ethnic division.

The Y chromosome of a single individual has spread rapidly and is now found in ∼8% of the males throughout a large part of Asia. Indeed, if our sample is representative, this chromosome will be present in about 16 million men,(out of a population of 200 million men, that is less than the male population of Asia) ∼0.5% of the world's total. The available evidence suggests that it was carried by Genghis Khan. His Y chromosome would obviously have had ancestors, and our best estimate of the TMRCA of star-cluster chromosomes lies several generations before his birth.

That is why I mentioned Ghenghis Khan being a male descendant of the first Khans uniting the tribes. There were also other descendants in leading positions. For a leading figure, like his father, polygamy is mentioned in historic records.

The Hazaras of Pakistan have a Mongol origin (Qamar et al. 2002), and many consider themselves to be direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan. A genealogy documenting these links has been constructed from their oral history (Mousavi 1998). A large proportion of the Hazara profiles do indeed lie in the star cluster, which is not otherwise seen in Pakistan (fig. 2), thus supporting their oral tradition and suggesting that Genghis Khan carried the star-cluster haplotype.

Afghan tribes were part of the Empire, but do not show this pattern except the Hazaras. On the other hand it seems to be spread in the area north of Afghanistan. So there is an ethnic division. It is not made evident that this haplotype is limited to descendants of Ghenghis Khan. It suggests that Ghenghis Khan carried that haplotype.

This rise in frequency, if spread evenly over ∼34 generations, would require an average increase by a factor of ∼1.36 per generation... More will follow

Wandalstouring 13:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Before we continue nitpicking about random details, can you please explain why this story is supposed to be relevant to an article about the ethnic group of the Mongols? --Latebird 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a unique genetic feature with its origin in this group and it shows the influence of this group. Besides it is often mentioned with the ethnic group of the Mongols and contributes to the picture about this historic ethnity and their customs. Your links ([Genghis Khan#Modern descendants]]Descent from Genghis Khan) state even a recent influence on perception of other ethnic groups. I linked this part of the article to it. Parts of the article were picked for discussion. So everybody can see at one look what I base my arguments specifically upon. 213.101.231.28 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be an argument to repeat the respective paragraph from Genghis Khan#Modern descendants over here. I guess I could live with that (under its own heading, not in the introduction).

But you still need to explain why the "unusual prportion of sexes" is relevant. If you really consider it instrumental to the distribution of said y-chromosome, please confirm that with sources.

And third, does the custom of dressing boys as girls add anything of relevance, besides folkloristic trivia? I'm still not convinced that it belongs into this article. --Latebird 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

dressing boys as girls is based upon the high mortality of boys. the result is more boys than girls. this leads to more than one girl sharing one boy. this is polygamy. the girls have one socially successful male (social selection). this is the source for the increase of the specific y-chromosome. abducting foreign women naturally contributes. but it says: a factor of ∼1.36 per generation and they were not all the time massively importing women. least the calculations point out, that it is more probable it started before Ghenghis Khan was born. Wandalstouring 15:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the proportion of sexes deeply influences the culture.

this is the source for the increase of the specific y-chromosome.

You still need to provide sources that specifically document this causality for the extreme increase of one single chromosome. Note that the study itself rejects such a "natural" cause, and that the increase didn't only happen in Mongolia, but in all the conquered territories, many of which had very different living conditions. --Latebird 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for it, but I should get it soon. I never wrote in any word about a "natural" cause. Please read and do not make things up. Neither is the area of the spread clearly defined, but basic calculation of the total male population (200 million) mentioned makes it likewise that it is Central Asia and the inhabitants did have a similar background. Another hint is the title of Mongolian nobility "amir", meaning grandson or great grandson and it directly refers to being male line descendant of Kabul Khan. Ghenghis Khan was an amir for example.

"that the increase didn't only happen in Mongolia, but in all the conquered territories," That statement is plainly wrong. The article calculates with 200 million male. China itself has more males than this and was part of the conquered territories. Wandalstouring 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for it - In other words, you don't have sources (yet) for what you wrote in the article. I have added the relvant information from Genghis_Khan#Modern_descendants to a section of its own and removed your original research from the introduction. Once you are actually able to document your claims, you can of course add them again. And please read Wikipedia:Verifiability very carefully: I don't actually need to prove that your statements are wrong, you need to prove that they have been published in a reputable publication before. --Latebird

Of course, nice to see you understand such things. But this does not make things original research. Wandalstouring 11:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I followed a link to this discussion. I haven't read all of it, but I'll just say that the Gengis Khan claim is speculative and controversial. Even if Gengis Khan did carry that Y chromosome, it's not to say that he is the cause of its spread - the effect could be much more subtle, or indeed the estimated age of the allele incorrect. It looks like a classic case of authors throwing a sensational claim into their paper to increase its chances of getting published. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

Our job here is only to report about the hypothesis raised in that publication. It is NOT our job to decide whether the conclusions drawn in the paper are actually correct. And to propose our own hypothesis about the causes for the observed effects is entirely out of the question. --Latebird 19:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV requires all views to be reflected, and I have no doubt that alternative interpretations of the data have been published. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are any reputable publications of that kind, then those would indeed be interesting material for expanding Descent from Genghis Khan. Until then, we need to work with what we have. --Latebird 07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Samsara, that was my central point and I started to add some background about the Mongol society. Ok, at the moment I am still waiting for some striking sources. I hope to get them soon. Wandalstouring 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the {{NPOV-secion}} tag again. As long as no verifiable scientific sources are provided that disagree with [6], statements like I have no doubt that alternative interpretations have been published will remain pure speculation. That is not enough to claim an actual dispute. --Latebird 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting sources correctly

Genetic impact

-

Main article: Descent from Genghis Khan

- Zerjal et al [2003] - identified a Y-chromosomal lineage present in about 8% of the men in a large region of Asia - (about 0.5% of the men in the world). The paper suggests that the pattern of variation within the lineage is consistent with a hypothesis that it originated in Mongolia about 1,000 years ago. Such a spread would be too rapid to have occurred by diffusion, and must therefore be the result of selection. The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan, and that it has spread through social selection.

All articles[7] about this topic calculate the spread most likely prior to the birth of Ghenghis Khan. This should be stated. The possibility for Ghenghis Khan being the origin is not overwhelming due to the calculations. Wandalstouring 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The cited study clearly favours Genghis "and his close male-line relatives" as the origin, and explains why other scenarios are unlikely. You have yet to present a single scientific source disagreeing with that view. Please stop speculating and show us some sources. --Latebird 10:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Latebird, pls do some goddam research yourself instead of just objectifying all the time. Do you not know how to do a cited sources literature search? It's not that difficult, honestly. I can barely type at the moment, so please! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking sentences from the source. Note that the source mixes the conclusions of different articles and makes no scientific proof for the Ghenghis Khan claim at the end.

"A genealogy documenting these links has been constructed from their oral history (Mousavi 1998). A large proportion of the Hazara profiles do indeed lie in the star cluster, which is not otherwise seen in Pakistan (fig. 2), thus supporting their oral tradition and suggesting that Genghis Khan carried the star-cluster haplotype."

-> no evidence for Ghenghis Khan being the origin, but expressing carefully that he was probably carrying the haplotype. BIG difference.

The exact words of the source are:

"The available evidence suggests that it was carried by Genghis Khan. His Y chromosome would obviously have had ancestors, and our best estimate of the TMRCA of star-cluster chromosomes lies several generations before his birth. Several scenarios, which are not mutually exclusive, could explain its rapid spread:

(1) all populations carrying star-cluster chromosomes could have descended from a common ancestral population in which it was present at high frequency;

(2) many or most Mongols at the time of the Mongol empire could have carried these chromosomes;

(3) it could have been restricted to Genghis Khan and his close male-line relatives, and this specific lineage could have spread as a result of their activities."

Suggestion 1 is unlikely, OK. I simply refer with further historical info to suggestion 2 of the article. The articles argumentation rules out suggestion 2 based on the genetic diversity besides the specific haplotype in modern Mongolia. The Mongol title "amir" and its meaning do imply what suggestion 2 needs. But I DO simply quote a fact without drawing a conclusion and that makes the difference to creative research.

here a map about the spread

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1180246&blobname=AJHGv72p717fg2.jpg

The colored part of shows the Empire at the time of Ghenghis Khan´s death.

Wandalstouring 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

do some goddam research yourself - What about Wikipedia:Civility? I have inserted a paragraph in this article based on a verifiable source. If it is your intention to cast doubt on that source, then it up to YOU to provide other sources supporting your claims. I find it very peculiar, that in about a dozen pages of discussion here and in many dozens of edits to the article, first User:Wandalstouring and now you as well have systematically refused to provide even one single independent source of your own. What's the point of having a discussion without arguments? --Latebird 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you can read and understand scientific English sources. This source you are quoting does provide doubt itself. YOU DO NOT QUOTE IT CORRECTLY NEITHER IS IT QUOTED CORRECTLY IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Was that clear? And DO answer at the end of a discussion and not somewhere in the middle. I did provide the story about "trivia" dressing boys as girls and I have been reading the quoted sources carefully. I DO not make a bloody claim. DO you understand the difference?

Wandalstouring 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly understanding scientific data. The timeframe for the origin is from 800 to 1200(lower probability at the ends, peak in the middle!!!). Ghenghis united the Mongols in 1206 and started his campaigns afterwards. It has already been pointed out in various sources here that from genetic research it is more likely that his greatgrandfather was the origin (highest probability). So it is simply interpreting data and we do already have different opinions right in front of you. Take the barn out of your eye. Wandalstouring 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

no evidence for Ghenghis Khan being the origin, but expressing carefully that he was probably carrying the haplotype. - Nobody claimed hard evidence ("the paper suggests"), so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here. As I previously pointed out, such evidence would require that his physical remains are found.

There is an omission (which I already hinted at here) in that the deleted paragraph only mentions Genghis himself, and doesn't explicitly specify "and his close relatives" as the source does. I have no problem adding this for extra precision. Other than that, I don't see any fundamental discrepancies at the moment. Why do you think "amir" is a mongol title? And how would a title carry any genetic relevance?

Btw: I didn't write that paragraph, I just copied it over from Genghis Khan#Modern_descendants, as I clearly announced here. Your agression is therefore targeted at the wrong author. And I certainly never objected to correcting any errors when pointed out politely. --Latebird 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (PS: If you move statements by other people around, please make sure that they remain intact).

Yesugei is the father of Ghenghis Khan and the grandson of Qabul Khagan who was the grandson of Mongol chief Quaidu (the link in wiki there is wrong). Quaidu was the first to unite all Mongols. Khans had several wives (enhaced reproduction, social selection). The claim of Ghenghis Khan was based upon unifying after a civil war. I simply suggest to mention his complete genealogy in Genghis Khan#Modern_descendants and to print the whole scientific dispute of possibilities and differing calculations there. This part of Mongol history is not considered in the article, assuming that Ghenghis was the first to maintain the ressources of the united tribes.

"(2) many or most Mongols at the time of the Mongol empire could have carried these chromosomes"

It is not ruled out by the genetic diversity found among the other male inhabitants of Mongolia. As stated elsewhere in the secret history of the Mongols, Ghenghis Khan had to fight relatives among the nobility of other tribes like Jamukha Gurkhan (longer article in German wiki). So Ghenghis does have a long line of powerfull ancestors (many with several wives) and members of this "family" were leading different tribes.

Well the title of "amir" seems not to be contained in Mongol dialects (translates Mongolian/English, you can look up yourself or look on this source of words). It is disputed whether it is a mix of Arabian and Mongolian titles, most likely Arabian description for the Mongol concept of nobility. So two different languages and concepts get mixed, nothing uncommon in this case. Forget it. Mongols made nobility by being male descendant of an important man and before Ghenghis Khan the most important male was Qabul Khagan. Ghenghis Khan was at first "just" his successor, ending a civil war.

The Mongol family name does refer to being male descendant and had been abolished. But there is soon going to be a published archive (former secret archieve) of family names in Mongolia. I made a link in Genghis Khan#Modern_descendants to the correct family name of all direct male descendants. Descent did play an important role in Mongol society while under Ghenghis it was outruled by a meritocracy.

I did already correct your statement after realizing my mistake.

no evidence for Ghenghis Khan being the origin, but expressing carefully that he was probably carrying the haplotype. - Nobody claimed hard evidence ("the paper suggests"), so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here. As I previously pointed out, such evidence would require that his physical remains are found.

No, it is not essential to find the remains, there are other possibilities like the oral tradition used for the Hazara. But it has not been made clear in the articles that the pattern among the Hazara solely refered to this man and his closest kin. That would be conclusive. But oral tradition is likely not so accurate, possibly mixing up important persons. Wandalstouring 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

alternative history is not a source

In What If?, a collection of essays on alternative military history, Cecilia Holland pictures the likely result of a Mongol thrust into Western Europe. She pictures a massive raid rather than a complete occupation; nevertheless, the picture she paints is chilling. Driving across the North German plain, the same route Cold War planners pictured for a Soviet invasion, the Mongols would have made use of expert reconnaissance to target plunder and grazing land. They would have sacked Belgium and Holland, destroying the embryonic financial centers of Europe. They would have turned south into France, destroying Paris and with it the revival of ancient philosophy that it would have hosted a few decades later. Perhaps they would have crossed the Alps and ravaged Italy, destroying the other birthplaces of the Renaissance. In his foreword to the piece, editor Robert Cowley says "The Dark Ages were pure light compared to what could have happened..."

"What If?" is quoted as a source and it is neither scientific nor balanced. I strongly suggest eliminating it. Wandalstouring 14:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a relatively minor issue when compared to the bigger question: Why does this article duplicate the content from Mongol Empire and the other articles from the History of Mongolia series? I think most of that could be replaced with a translation of the german language article, as you proposed yourself a while ago. --Latebird 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure it out, but the high casualty figures are most likely from this alternative history source. Such casualties would have had a similar impact in population loss and economic decline as a full scale nuclear attack, a bit surprising.

It is still not clear what this article should be about and what should be linked from other articles. Wandalstouring 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Mongol did have a bitter defeat when attempting to invade ancient Vietnam, I don't remember the name of this ancient kingdom but they beat Mongol invasions three times, even when the Mongol empire was at its pace of power. Can anyone add this because it pointed out that the Mongol empire wasn't defeated only by internal problems. I remembered several other victories against Mongol invasion but can't make it clear, just this significant one.Hawkie 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mongols sent two armadas of unprecedented size against Kyūshū, Japan (supposedly at the behest of their Korean and Chinese subjects, who were ever so eager to attack their most hated neighbor), but failed miserably in both attempts to invade Japan. The Mongol army (and impromptu navy) was certainly not invincible, especially when they were fighting out of their element. They might not have fared so well after they had gotten past the steppe-like plains of Poland and into the forests, mountains, and valleys of southern Germany. Ebizur 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "alternate history" fictions don't really have a place in an historical account of the Mongols. Also, in my opinion, the "alternate" argument is pretty weak as I think the Mongols would've been slaughtered if they had entered Western Europe, political disarray or no. Mounted archers from the steppes probably wouldn't have fared very well against pike-lines and heavily armed infantry. Especially in the mountains and forests. Childe Roland of Gilead 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mongolians today

Most of this material would better fit in the Mongolian Empire article. Every other ethnicity article concentrates on the current ethncity and if this chooses to concentrate on historic Mongols than there should be a seperate Mongolians page. The Mongolian ethnicity today remains facinitating and has interesting issues that should be discussed in full. By concentrating on history it presents the Mongolians as a mostly historical people found only in fragments today which is completely untrue. The Mongolians who live today should be given their due, just like EVERY OTHER ETHNICITY WHO HAS THEIR OWN ARTICLE. I'm not a Mongolian, but I am fascinated by the people and they deserve an article that concentrates on them instead of only on their history. Jztinfinity 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly agree. Maybe better to summarize the sections related with Mongolian Empire and its history into a paragraph, then continue with todays Mongols. Any other proposals? comments? E104421 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From this article looks like mongols had no history before Ghinghis and not much after the Empire. An article about todays mongolians should focus at the last centuries, budhism, comunism, and how Rusia, Japan and China influenced Mongolia.

Regardless of many factual oversimplifications, I would recommend that someone repair the article in order to make it more readable. The sentences are too short and choppy and the syntax is often difficult to make out on the first read. I think doing this would make the article sound more credible as well (historical accuracy is not my area of expertise).

early history

someone defaced a part of this entry with the words *I like porn* I do not know how to edit these pages and leave it to those smarter then I.

Turkish?

How is the word for Mongols in Turkish relevant? Krum Stanoev 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten

The problem has been discussed before, and a solution has also been proposed. Most of the information previously found in this article really belongs to History of Mongolia, Genghis Khan, Mongol Empire, Military advances of Genghis Khan, Mongol military tactics and organization, and probably a few other articles.

I have just done a complete rewrite, based on the german language version. The article is now exclusively about the ethnic group, and contains only information that is relevant to this subject. Please don't fill it with unrelated material again. If you think that anything from the previous version was irreplaceable, please move it from the history to the respective relevant article. Thanks. --Latebird 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)