Talk:Kublai Khan/Archive 1

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

Older discussion

Has he founded the Yuan Dynasty? If so, why is it not mentioned on the Dynastys' page? -User:Olivier

Stop being so childish, Roadrunner. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:57 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Names and spellings

Today, for clarity, I brought all of the old name-spelling commentary into this one section, without deleting any text. (I myself observe that it is unlikely that anyone alive today knows how his name was pronounced within and near his realm(s) while he was alive, so all spellings within English-language texts, such as this article, are somewhat arbitrary.) Acwilson9 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Khubilai or Kublai?

Should we keep using the corrupted form in western literature? I'd like to move this to "Khubilai Khan." --Nanshu 03:17, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). This is a romanization. How can one version be better than another? --Jiang 05:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Kublai" doesn't adhere to the original name. It may be more popular in common usage, but not in academic literature. Kublai is still better than Ogodai. It is a total error by western historians. --Nanshu 23:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Consider it English. We have an article at Kuomintang, not Guomindang even though the latter sounds more like the actual pronounciation. Someone tried to move the Stalin article too. --Jiang 00:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Several prominent Eastern archaeologists use the Kublai Khan form. In addition, Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia from the masses for the masses. As such, popular names are considered good names for articles. While I would like for all articles to use proper names for relevant subjects, some people prefer to work backwards by having articles use popular names while redirects use proper names. I disagree, but I'm not going to fight such idiocy. Adraeus 15:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
At the very least would it be possible to standardize the names throughout the entry? The picture has a different spelling of his name from the title of the entry which has a different spelling from those used within the article itself--all in all a mess. --Seaborg106 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Names table

I have modified and enriched the names table to have it more standardized with the names tables of the other Chinese emperors, and also to take into account particularities of the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty. The new table should be used as a model for the other Mongol emperors. My knowledge of Mongolian is more limited than my knowledge of Chinese, so please correct any errors in the Mongolian (cyrillic) names if you see some. Hardouin 20:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's kind of silly that the infobox is bigger than the article. Filiocht 12:54, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Tables are a valid medium of information - the remedy is not to shorten the table but lengthen the article. --Oldak Quill 13:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tables should be converted to wiki syntax. See Template:Infobox Company for an example. Adraeus 15:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The "names table" appears to have disappeared at some time in the past. Acwilson9 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Turkish spelling of his name

A while ago I added the Turkish spelling of his name, Kubilay Han. Why has this been deleted? If we look at the article about his grandfather, Genghis Khan, we can seen that the Turkish spelling is mentioned there, and justly so because Cengiz (or Cengizhan) is a frequently occurring name among Turks; so is Kubilay. Siyah Kalem 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a historic person who ruled Mongolia and China. Just because his name may be popular with some people in Turkey doesn't mean that the Turkish language is relevant to him. It is of highly dubious relevance even for Genghis (one of the historic eastern Turkic languages would be more appropriate there). --Latebird 16:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You're ignoring the fact that Mongols were closely related to the Turks in custom and language and that their histories overlap each other, at least till the 13th-14th century. So names like Genghis Khan and Khublai Khan are as relevant to Turks as they are to, let's say, Chinese. See also : the Altaic language tree. But I agree with you that the term Turkic would be more appropriate. Siyah Kalem 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There's only one fact that matters here: The region of modern Turkey and its language had zero influence on the life of Kublai. --Latebird 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about the region of modern Turkey. I'm talking about Turks. Siyah Kalem 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In the territories ruled by Kublai, Turkic language speakers were at best a small minority during that time. So what exactly is your point? --Latebird 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Directly, yes, that's correct - but nominally as "great Khan" he was overlord of a vast region of people who spoke various Turkic tongues.50.111.3.17 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This man ruled Turkic peoples so need to be add Turkic name and it is Kubilay Han.

pinyin/more nitpicking

I don't really see the point in having all these pinyin retransscriptions of Khubilai's name(s). The transskriptions into Chinese characters are worth having, of course, but who needs transskriptions (from Chinese characters) of transskriptions (from Mongolian)? Yaan 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason, is that the Chinese writing is the language of the primary source on the subject. It may be originally transcribed from Mongolian, but the Mongolian that you see today is actually transcribed from the written Chinese. Timmyshin (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Setsen Khan (Сэцэн хаан)

Isn't "Setsen Khan (Сэцэн хаан)" a posthumous name of Kublai Khan in Mongolian language instead of "Khan name"? Mongol rulers before Kublai didn't have such names. It seems that it's just another posthumous name (in Mongolian language) than the one in Chinese language, after Yuan adopted the concept of posthumous names from previous Chinese dynasties. Similar to temple names, posthumous names were only given after the death of a Yuan emperor/khaan, not during his lifetime. --207.112.124.205 (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kubla (Coleridge)

I think "Kubla" is the name as represented in the poem Kubla Khan. Should it be considered as an alternative name for Kublai Khan? (If yes, it should be mentioned elsewhere anyway, along with the name Khubilai) Thanks for suggestions. --Evecurid (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Improvement

This article needs serious improvement. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 05:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Adraeus 15:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Your Mission...should you choose to accept it is to read the Rossabi book (see references on the main Khublai Khan page), digest it and and make a condensed, yet original, version of it and post it here. Or, more exactly, to the Khublai Khan page. Good luck. We're all counting on you. --Thadswanek 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have done a massive expansion of this article. The history of his early years have been added, along with his (brief) war against his brother for Khanate, and his years as emperor. The section "Empire" has been split into Mongol Empire and Emperor of Yuan, since the old section seems to entail two different things. Era names have been added back in. Sources come from Chinese wikipedia and Chinese CYCNET online encyclopedia. Olorin28 04:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
PITY - Great khan but little article. --Enerelt (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has had the polo information removed other then the one picture. I view this article as nothing more then a vandalized piece by the Chinese government, removing all the European history. All 3 polo brothers where offed post in Kublai Khan's court... yet nothing about this, and more. Zeus 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.130.166 (talk)
Fifteen years later, this article still needs work by experts. Especially, parts of the "Reign" and "Warfare and..." sections are poorly written and/or have few or no citations. Acwilson9 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Era names

To what do these names refer? Without any sort of description of this section, the information contained is wholly irrelevant to the article. I've removed this section until someone can provide a description or someone merges it into an appropriate section of the article. Adraeus 15:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Era names are very important in China, since they are the only means to keep track of years. Historians often referred a specific year, for example 5th year of Zhiyuan, or 28th year of Zhengguan. I have added era names into the table, and used some dates as era names throughout the article. Olorin28 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

(Paper currency) Nitpicking

"He also introduced paper currency although eventually a lack of fiscal discipline and inflation turned this into an economic disaster." This is a flawed sentence in that it alludes that Kublai's rule had the paper currency inflated. According to Rossabi, this isn't true. The currency was backed by a silver or silk standard and was controlled in printing. It was only after Kublai's death, and the "Three Infamous" rulers who came after him who caused economic turmoil (as per the Song experimenters in currency in the dynasty before, they printed out money with no regard of inflation). Kublai Khan was a lot more aware of economic issues than what this current article gives him credit for. But, do understand that in a modern context, all of the financial undertakings during this time were pretty damn horrible. It's just in the retrospective context that it becomes clear that Kublai Khan brought a lot of good to the concept of currency. -User:UnfathomableJ 10:22 22 March 2006 (PST) I would be willing over the next week to do a bit of textual citation and editing using the Rossabi book, by the way.

I do not see that sentence as flawed. It says "eventually". The problem with Rossabi is that he is such a bad scholar and a revisionist. If you look I think you may find that it is true during KK's reign as well. Kubilai shows no signs of knowing much about anything apart from traditional Mongol passtimes as it happens. Paper currency was an unmitigated disaster and I do not see that KK did anyone any good at all. What do you think was so good about it? Providing a trustworthy currency based on silver or gold would have done some good. He didn't do that - why not? 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Singhasari

this needs to be mentioned since the Khan demanded submission from them. Inadvertly created the Majapahit Empire--Dangerous-Boy 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Did the Mongol army stop the invasion deeper into Europe upon his death?

I remember this fact was mentioned on the History Channel. It may as well be in this article. John Hyams 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, it was Ogedei Khan. John Hyams 00:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There appears to be some vandalism in the "early years" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.73.71 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

request : Please fix the picture on the right side

nt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.80.113.243 (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Kamikaze, the divine wind that protects Japan from Mongol invasions

The bad weather that destroyed their fleet, before most of them were able to get to shore, was called kamikaze in Japanese, meaning divine wind. During the second invasion, the command ships which were well made survived the weather, while most of the fleet sunk. Some say its because to meet the insane demand it be done in a year, they had to gather up all the riverboats about, and use them, as well as whatever they could quickly make with conscripted disgruntled Chinese labor. Not sure how many of these sunken boats the underwater archeologist looked over, and found stamps indicating they were river boats. Someone probably should google around for information about that sometime. Finding just one boat with a stamp on it, indicating it was approved by the river boat inspector in some area, doesn't mean they were all like that. I assume most of these ships are buried somewhat, so they'll have to dig around awhile to make certain of everything.

I am curious that, when the weather started getting bad, they didn't just get off their ships. Did they sink on the way there? Why not land somewhere, and make camp there? Or did the storm hit within the few days they arrived? Is there a page dedicated solely to that battle somewhere? If not, someone should make one.

The Japanese altered their tactics after the first Mongol invasion, so they were much better prepared the second time around. The first time around, they'd charge out, trying to do one on one battle, announcing their name and why they were worthy of a fight, as was their custom.

Underwater archeologist showed the Mongols had explosive balls with shrapnel in them, that would be catapulted out, and would send metal flying everywhere. Dream Focus 11:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any other sources for your claims than a badly researched TV documentary? This is not a place to spread popular myths and rumours. --Latebird 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of what Dream Focus is talking about is rather well known, except for the claim about riverboats and the part about the Japanese changing their tactics. The ships sank because they pulled back from the shore, and then got caught in the storm-- it's usually not possible to go in any direction you want in a sailboat in a massive storm, so why they didn't just "land somewhere" doesn't need a whole lot of explanation. Also, the use of explosives by the Mongols is documented; they copied their weapons from the Song who were using them against the Mongols, so this is no surprise. I haven't encountered anything that suggested that the Japanese samurai ever adapted their tactics to meet the Mongol threat in particular; after both invasions they just went back to killing each other as they had before, so the effect of the invasion on Japanese military culture was rather minor. siafu 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The documentary showed the items they found, and they x-rayed the explosive. So even if their conclusion about the riverboat, based on their limited exclavation, was in error, you can not deny that they had gunpowder at that time.
I found a site listing the differant stages of evolution in Japanese swords.
Mongol Invasion
The famous failed invasion of Japan by the Mongols marked a point of evolution for the Japanese sword. Japanese warriors had never before encountered such an enemy who was protected by leather armor and wielded a very stout sword superior to theirs in a unique style of fighting. Japanese swordsmiths started to adopt thinner and simpler temper lines due to their belief that blades with wide temper lines reaching near to the ridge line look beautiful, but tend to break. Certain Japanese swordsmiths of this period began to make blades with thicker backs and bigger points, as a counter-response to the Mongol threat.
Maybe its just their swords that changed. Googling around to try to find how their culture and military changed afterwards, but haven't found any good referances yet.
http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/divine-wind.htm I think this site has something that could be added to the artical. Mention why he invaded, and the officially reported numbers of their losses, and how that affected both sides. Dream Focus 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agreed with you about the explosives; it's well documented that the Mongols started using them after they were victim to them in the campaign against Song. Also, you can find much of the specific information on the invasion over at Mongol invasions of Japan. siafu 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Chabi

Our history book puts a lot of emphasis on the influence Kublai Khan's wife, Chabi, had on him. I was checking Wikipedia for a picture of her and found that there was not even a page for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.67.55 (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can try to do some further research on this, hopefully she has some notable accomplishments, who ever played her in the Netflix series was great, hopefully the writers took some actual events and wrote them into her character arch.EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese

Is there any evidence the Yuan emperors ever explicitely referred to themselves as "Chinese"? Yaan (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They did declare themselves as "Emperor of China", although they were not ethnic Chinese. You may compare Kublai Khan with William I of England, both shared some similarities.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a link to a document, or a quote, in which they did (in Chinese should do)? I know they declared to be emperors of the Great Yuan, but my books don't really say they explicitely declared to be emperors of China, or how Yuan relates to China (i.e. identical or a superset). Yaan (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To become an Emperor of China, one has to claim the Mandate of Heaven. Kublai actually claimed the Mandate of Heaven and then declared the creation of the Great Yuan (which was from Chinese 大元). For instance, each edict from Yuan emperors started with "上天眷命，皇帝圣旨" ("From the Mandate of Heaven, the divine edict of the Emperor"), which is what emperors of China would do.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that, even if they possibly did, "Emperor of China" isn't necessarily the same as "Chinese Emperor". --Latebird (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Was William I of England the "King of England" or "English King"? They were not necessarily the same either.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they acted like Chinese emperors, but did they ever declare "we are chinese" or "yuan is a chinese state"? They seem to have translated Dai Yuan into Dai Ön Yeke Mongghol Ulus - like stuff at a number of occasions (source at Talk:Yuan Dynasty), which makes me wonder whether they perceived themselves as Chinese at all. Yaan (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is the dual-property of the Yuan. Yuan was both a dynasty of China and a khanate of the Mongols, though with the same administrated area. As a dynasty of China, "Dai Yuan" (大元) was its official name; as a khanate of the Mongols, "Dai Ön" was the name used for that Mongol khanate (in that source, it says "the Yeke Mongghol Ulus called 'Dai Ön'", i.e. the Mongolian khanate with the name "Dai Ön", where "Dai Yuan" and "Dai Ön" are actually different romanizations from "大元", lit. "Great Yuan").--209.183.5.36 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dai Ön is actually the romanization from Mongolian, not a (direct) romanization of 大元. But this "Dai Ön" is of course just the Mongol version of 大元 (you probably know this, but other readers may not). I agree that these inscriptions make it seem that the Mongol - at least sometimes - perceived 大元 as identical to the Great Mongolian State. What I would like to see some evidence for, though, is that they (or Khubilai, anyway) perceived 大元 to be identical to (as opposed to some superset of) China. Yaan (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think they perceived 大元 as identical to the entire Mongol Empire (already divided into a few khanates), but instead as identical to the Mongolian State (khanate) they controlled that had the name "Dai Ön", i.e. the easternmost khanate of the already divided Mongol Empire, and THAT was what Dai Ön Yeke Mongghol Ulus (appeared casually) referred to. Evidence that they perceived 大元 to be identical to China is given by MainBody's messages below.--209.183.28.101 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Is three (?) inscriptions out of six that are known really "casually"? Yeke Mongghol Ulus really referred to the whole Mongol Empire. Mainbody's evidence seems rather circumstancial. Nobody denied that the Yuan were aware that they ruled China (and some other areas), the question here is self-perception. Given that knowledge of Chinese among the emperors seems to have been pretty rudimentary in a number of cases[citation needed] and that Mongolian doesn't even distinguish between "Chinese" and "Han Chinese", all that "they acted like legitimate Chinese emperors" does not seem relevant here at all. Was Charles V a Spaniard or an Italian?
I won't answer questions regarding Mainbody's evidence (he will probably answer them), but I will point out that Chinese text did distinguish between "Great Mongol State" (大蒙古国) and "Mongol Empire" (蒙古帝国). The former ("大蒙古国", "Great Mongol State"/"Yeke Mongghol Ulus") refers to the state under control of the central government (which appeared in the time of Genghis, but in Kublai's reign from 1260 to 1271, it was used as a synonym to the legitimate Chinese state, as in Khublai Khan's Letter-of-credence to Japan), and the latter ("蒙古帝国", "Mongol Empire") refers to the theoretic empire that covered all the khanates ruled by the Mongols. They were same from 1206 to 1260, but differed after that. It's not only that the Yuan were aware that they ruled China, but they actually claimed the legitimacy of their rule as Emperor of China. Also, it's NOT true that "Mongolian doesn't even distinguish between 'Chinese' and 'Han Chinese'". "Chinese" is "中国人", and "Han Chinese" is "汉人". The traditional Chinese ideology never limited Chinese emperor to Han Chinese, and Kublai certainly knew this when he founded the Yuan Dynasty. The inscriptions were only translations, and the primary text was much more important (such as their edicts). The edicts from Yuan emperors starting with "上天眷命，皇帝圣旨" ("From the Mandate of Heaven, the divine edict of the Emperor") were not casual at all.--207.112.56.118 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Chinese and Mongolian are really two different languages, and 汉人 and 中国人 are clearly Chinese. I really meant to say "Mongolian doesn't even distinguish between 'Chinese' and 'Han Chinese'". The Chinese text in these Sino-Mongolian inscriptions did not seem to mention anything about whether 大元 was the same as 中國 or maybe just a super-entity, and I also don't remember how the Mongolian inscriptions are supposed to be of only secondary importance - they were made at the same time as the Chinese ones, weren't they (forgot to download the pdf of the article, but will probably have access again next week)? What's the source for the different meanings of 大蒙古国 and 蒙古帝国, which kinds of documents are using the second variant? Regards, Yaan (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course 汉人 and 中国人 are Chinese. But as Kublai clearly learned Chinese ideology, he certainly knew the differences between them. "The inscriptions did not seem to mention anything about whether 大元 was the same as 中國" is normal, so as the inscriptions in other dynasties. Kublai claimed the Mandate of Heaven and founded the Yuan Dynasty in accordance with the Chinese ideology. As mentioned before, Yuan had dual-property: Dynasty of China and the Great Khanate (essentially "大蒙古国", "Great Mongol State"）. 蒙古帝国 ("Mongol Empire") is obviously a theoretic concept, and we can't even give a certain date of when "蒙古帝国" disappeared (why 1405, for example?).--207.112.56.118 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If we believe WP, then 1405 might be the year a certain Khan (or Great Khan) chose to abandon that Northen Yuan stuff. I didn't mean to treat the absence of evidence for "Yuan Dynasty = China" as evidence of absence, just as what it is - absence of evidence (even if this absence is just what is to be expected). How sure can we be on the meaning of 汉人 vs. 中国人 in the 13th century? Yaan (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No, 1405 was not the year any khan chose to abandon the Northern Yuan. Instead, Örüg Temür Khan (Guilichi) abandon the name "Yuan" in 1402. But does this mean The Mongol Empire end in this year? I don't think so. The name "Yuan" appeared in 1271, and disappeared in 1402, and how does this name have anything to do with "Mongol Empire"? It turns out to be rather theoretic, instead of a practical stuff.--207.112.56.118 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, you got me here. Maybe you should just place a [dubious – discuss] or [citation needed] tag behind that 1405 at "Mongol Empire". As far as I am concerned, I think it should be possible to find sources that say the end of the empire was actually in 1260. But I guess such dates are often a bit difficult. I'm really at a loss at what could be the significance of 1405, is it the death of Timur? Have a nice sunday, Yaan (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
btw, as pointed out in the article, Yuan was administered in 11 provinces during Kublai's reign (one of which was Lingbei Province (岭北行省, lit. "Mountain North Province"), which covered Mongolia). These provinces certainly did not cover the territories of the other khanates, not even nominally.--209.183.28.101 (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. But that the Yuan did not anticipate the politics of a certain island government 750 years later does not yet mean they had no claims beyond the area they controlled. Yaan (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PRC does not anticipate the politics of Taiwan, but it does claim that area by preserving the Taiwan Province, though nominally. Yuan never preserved any institutions (either practically or nominally) beyond the area they controlled.--207.112.56.118 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the authoritative source of M. Rossabi's "Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times" which adopted the title of Emperor of China, there are instances when, as primary sources, the Letters of credence and instructions sent by the Yuan court used the name China ("中國") (see Khublai Khan's Letter-of-credence to Japan: "日本密邇高麗，時通中國。至於朕躬，而無一乘之使以通和好", his Co-Chancellor's instruction on Japanese spying in China: "今六合一家，何以刺探為？設果有之，正可令識中國之盛，歸告其主，使之向化" and intructions sent by Temur Khan's Co-Chancellor regarding Yunnan-Beijing relations: "可諭之使來，不足以煩中國")
Is that letter from Khubilai Khan the same as this one? The translation of this letter I have gives the impression that Khubilai refers to himself as the emperor of the Great Mongolian state. Yaan (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
But at the same time he referred his country to as China which no one can deny. [paragraph broken by Yaan for more specific reply] MainBody (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? Doesn't he just refer to China as one of his countries? I really don't read Chinese, but the German translation I have does not make this clear at all. Esp. given the several instances where Korea is mentioned, the relation of which to China is not explained (in the translation). Yaan (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to interfere your discussion, but I have to point out that he never referred to China as one of his countries in the letter. I don't know what the translation you have says, but I guess you have to find a better one. In order to understand the letter better, you should also know the traditional Chinese ideology regarding China (中国, lit. "Middle Kingdom") and its surrounding states. The Emperor of China is the Son of Heaven (天子), the overlord of all states in entire civilized world, though he doesn't have to have direct control of the territories beyond the Middle Kingdom. It's enough for the surrounding states to become subordinates nominally. The instances where Korea & Japan is mentioned in the letter should read: "As soon as I ('朕', which is a Chinese character meaning "I", but can only be used by Emperor of China since Qin Shi Huang) ascended the throne, I had stopped fighting with Koryo and restored their land and people. In gratitude, both the ruler and the people of Koryo came to our court; although they becomes our subordinates nominally, their joy resembles that of children with their father. Koryo is our eastern tributary (东籓). Japan is located near Koryo and since its founding has on several occasions sent envoys to the China (中国, lit. 'Middle Kingdom'). However, this has not happened since the beginning of my reign. This must be because you (i.e. Japan) are not fully informed. Therefore, I hereby send you a special envoy to inform you of our desire. From now on, let us enter into friendly relations with each other. Nobody would with to resort to arms.".--209.90.147.32 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Editor User:209.90.147.32 is right, Yaan. Not a single sentence, not even a single word from Khubilai's Letter-of-Credence shows that China was one of the countries of his Yuan Realm. Under Kubilai-divised administration structure, the Mongol homeland (Mongolia) instead became one of the 12 Sheng (Chinese province) of the Yuan State. Kindly read my previous comments below for details. MainBody (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's similar to the Qing/Manchu count when the Manchus used both "Emperor of the Great Qing State"(大清國大皇帝) and China (中國) interchangeably in each international treaty (see example). It hardly alters Qing's status as a Chinese Empire.
This may be true for the Qing, but concluding that Yuan and China are used interchangeably from just this one document, which IIRC only has one instance of each word, seems rather bold. Yaan (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand. Thats why for cross-examination I further added two more reference above regarding the adoption of the nation's name of China, one from Khubilai Khan's premier and one from another Emperor's (Temur Khan) premier. MainBody (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Even after (Southern) Sung collapsed Kubilai's Chancellor still adopted the name of China. MainBody (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if you can not read Chinese, just note that adopting the dynastic title of Yuan is already a sign of claiming legitimacy as the Chinese State (at least a successor state of Sung), Kublai saw his title seriously as China's Son Of Heaven:

  • "it is clear that the decisive steps to transform the Mongol ruler into a Chinese emperor have taken place under Khubilai Khan after some initial and rather inconclusive efforts under earlier rulers...It would be quite wrong to regard rule prior to Khubilai as entirely 'Mongol' and therefore barbarian and non-Chinese...The decisive step of adopting a Chinese dynasty name and thereby including the Mongol rulers in the succession of Chinese Dynasties did take place...after Khubilai had ascended the throne"[Herbert Franke, The Legitimation of the Yuan Emperor, pp25-26]
  • "He appealed to his Chinese subjects for help in reunifying China under his rule, but he did so within a Chinese context. A few days after issuing his proclmation, he adopted a Chinese reign title, Chung-Tung(Central Rule), like a typical Chinese emperor. In addition, he created government institutions that either resembled or were the same as the tradition Chinese ones.....Khubilai wished to signal to the Chinese that he intended to adopt the trappings and style of a Chinese ruler" [Rossabi, p56]
  • "(Khubilai Khan) continued the administrative structure of the Tang and Sung, particularly the Six fold division under the Six Ministries at the Capital. During the thirteen hundred years from the early Tang to 1906, this basic structure remained the same. The Yuan also continued a threefold division of central government among civil administrative, military, and supervisory(censorial) branches"[Fairbank, J. K. China: Tradition and Transformation, p167]

Original text of the Imperial Edict regarding the dynastic title of Yuan/Dai-On is available on WikiSource. The Mongol/Yuan court clearly regarded itself as the Successor of the Chinese historical dynasties including Sui and Tang.

If Russians regard themselves as heirs of Alexander Newskii, does it mean they regard themselves as Novgorodians? Yaan (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
no, and neither did Kubilai claim his dynasty "New Tang", "Second Sui". However, "China" stayed and everyone on this planet regards Nevsky as medieval-Russian and thus part of the the Russian line and regard Russia as the succession states of this proto-Russian regime. Unlike the Nevsky case, both Sui/Tang and Yuan courts at the first place used the term China referring to their country, similar to the Manchu court claiming their country as (Qing) China internationally. Note that in China, adpting dynastic title is a sign of claiming legitimacy of the dragon throne (aka Emperor of China) and this sui generis custom never in Nevsky's regime and other related regimes. MainBody (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Russia under ethnic-German Catherine the Great was still named Russia. Fellow editors, please let the sources speak. MainBody (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
And the Franconian empire under Charlemagne was never "French". The Holy Roman Empire empire was never a really "Roman" one, even if it placed itself in the tradition of the Imperium Romanum, called the rulers Caesar etc. We can bring up false analogies as long as we like. The sources, even one of those you brought up (thanks for that), are saying that Yuan was perceived as a Mongolian state by certain not-so-insignificant sujects, certainly by a number of its neighbours (anyone ever heard of a Chinese invasion of Japan?) Yaan (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Franks: Even the Frankish King never called his country State of France and Charlemage was never ethnic-French, there are indeed some French people (along with Germans of course) claiming their countries as the succession state[s] of the Frankish Kingdom. Remember the word French/France exactly derived from Francia, "Land of the Franks". Your Challlemagne analogy doesn't work because in the case of Catherine the Great, the word Russia/Rus had long existed before her birth. Please carefully distinguish between the concepts of "Nation State" and "Ethnic Group", you can be a Chinese Emperor without being an ethnic-Han (ethnic-Chinese).
HRE: Holy Roman Emperors never called their regime the Roman Empire or SPQR, and most importantly, unlike the SPQR, HRE's status as an Empire is still highly disputed, so using the HRE case as an analogy would be weird. And don't forget the full name of HRE includes "of the German Nation", it makes the case complex.
Unlike the Frankish Kingdom and HRE, even Khubilai/Mongols officials were non-Han the Yuan court still officially use the name China in government documents. Catherine the Great's case shows it did happen when a non-native person can become one country's leader without altering the country's identity. China's case is not unique, it happened in Russia and in Manchu Dynasty. Do you regard Catherine's Russia as "Russia". Simple question: Yes or no?
I think we should follow the quoted sources mentioning the term of "中國", "Chinese Emperor" (etc) unless we the editors claim higher authority than Khubilai and the authors themselves. I've provided tonnes of sources above(emphasis added), but I see ZERO source from anyone, at least technically, denying Kubilai Khan as the "Emperor of China/Zhongguo". Note that Wikipedia is source-oriented.
I don't see there is any difference between Yuan China and Qing China while both were non-Han. I repeat, ethnicity and sovereign-state are two concepts and I believe one country or one person can be Chinese without being Han. Manchu conquest of China made Manchuria part of China, it sounds weird, Yaan, but it is factually true. MainBody (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I am very well aware that the Chinese Language has this distinction. Mongolian has not (in fact, Inner Mongolians now have, but Outer Mongolians still don't, Хятад stands for both China and Han Chinese) - but this is not the point here, the point is whether China was the Yuan state, or whether China was a part of the Yuan state. And of course in both of these cases Khubilai would be emperor of China.
Since the 1270s, Khubilai had carried out the transformation of his Mongol State into a Chinese State. Adopting the dynastic title of Yuan clearly affirms this point.MainBody (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just an aside, what's the definition of China (中国, lit. "Middle Kingdom") do you think? Its definition can vary, for example, the state with mainly Chinese culture? The state whose ruler was Chinese? Or the state whose ruler had claimed to receive the Mandate of Heaven? Or, as a regional concept - if you consider Qing Dynasty be China, then the territories of Qing China contain all but Lake Baikal of the territories of the Yuan Dynasty, plus areas such as Taiwan. Anyway, an explicit definition may make things more clear. For your information, the traditional view of "China" ("The Middle Kingdom") is always the supreme state (the nominal overlord of surrounding (smaller) states), and can never be part of another state (so whichever state contains China is China, the Middle Kingdom); whoever received the Mandate of Heaven could enjoy this status as Emperor of China; even Kublai Khan used this ideology to justify their supremacy over surrounding states such as Korea and Japan.--209.90.147.32 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point, this seems to be the core of the problem. We should use whatever definition the Yuan rulers were using - if we have sufficient evidence - or just leave it out. The Mongols seem to have a different concept of China (China = where the Han Chinese live), so this makes all of this rather non-trivial. Yaan (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unquestionaly some schorlars' impression, but impression doesn't necessarily mean facts. For exmaination I still see no source showing the Mongol overlords rejected their post-1271 (元) status as the legitimate "Central State"/中國. Remember, under the official administive division the Mongol overlord even listed their own homeland as one of the 11 Chinese provinces sheng (even with the Chinese name 嶺北省, lit. Mountain-North Province), they obviously assilimated themselved into a Chinese Polity. As quoted above, Khubilai's Prime Minister publicly stated "今六合一家，何以刺探為？設果有之，正可令識中國之盛，歸告其主，使之向化". Even they (Japanese spies) come they could witness how powerful and prosperous the Middle Kingdom (China) is and they will get assilimated (sinicized) one day. MainBody (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have brought sources that make Yuan a Mongolian state - just primary sources, but at least can be sure that "Da Yuan Great Mongol State" is a designation used by certain contemporaries and not some later interpretation like "Yuan of China" - so you really should either mention both, or you can leave both out. Yaan (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yaan, I raise no question on classifing the Yuan as simultanuously a Mongol State(大蒙古國) and "China" and this classification is not weird as, for example, there is a source by which a SUNY professor describing the Mongol Yuan as: Mongol-ruled Chinese state. MainBody (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
A professor who speaks neither Mongolian, nor Chinese (nor Tibetan), I assume? I can give you a source for "Mongol Yuan dynasty in China, if you like. Yaan (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting, but does not really prove anything. I can find sources for something like "Manchu Qing Dynasty in China" and also "Ming Dynasty in China".--209.90.144.38 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, then what about some more Herbert Franke? "If one should try to characterize Mongol rule in the China of the 13th and 14th centuries, one could call it a kind of colonialism, as a rule that was based on military might, one with strong military characteristics", "Although the Great Khan's court was thus, on the outside, sinified, however the actual exertion of power under Khubilai still showed many characteristics of a supernational imperialism", "In any case, the plurality of cultural influences makes it difficult to clearly define the Mongol rule over China. Some governemnt actions of Khubilai are to be understood as results of Mongol government tradition, others show him as Chinese emperor, that is, as top of the bureaucracy, and towards the Tibetans Khubilai assumed the rule of a buddhist universal ruler" (H. Franke, Die Mongolen in China, in Walther Heissig, Claudius Mueller (editors) Die Mongolen (exhibition catalogue), Munich 1989, p. 58f, my translation). The text is rather short and does not go into much depth, but it actually makes me wonder about what Franke writes between those (...)s in the quote above. I guess I'll have to head to the library myself. Yaan (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Some governemnt actions of Khubilai are to be understood as results of Mongol government tradition, others show him as Chinese emperor" -- True. Kublai (and his successors) became Emperor of China while he (intentionally or unintentionally) preserved some Mongol traditions. For example, the Chinese seals he and Temur sent to Ilkhanate and actually used by Ilkhans for foreign relations (here and here, thanks for uploading them) in fact show them as Emperor of China, just like other Chinese emperors sent Chinese seals to Korea (among others). The Chinese seal sent by Kublai reads "輔國安民之寶" and the one sent by Temur reads "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶", where "真命皇帝" ("Mandate of Heaven Emperor") is a typical usage referring to Emperor of China. Thus, that Yuan Emperors saw themselves as Emperor of China is confirmed by the Chinese seal sent to and actually used by Ilkhanate, and this title (i.e. Emperor of China) is the main title used by Yuan Emperors when dealing with Ilkhans, though it's not yet clear if they also simultaneously claimed other titles (e.g. khagan).--207.112.34.108 (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Huangdi itself does not contain any mention of the word China, though. Yaan (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Huangdi ("皇帝"/"Emperor") alone does not necessarily mean Chinese Emperor, but "真命皇帝" ("Mandate of Heaven Emperor" or "Emperor with True Mandate of Heaven") does. As mentioned before, the one who received the Mandate of Heaven is the Emperor of China. There can be only one such emperor, who is exactly the Emperor of China, according to traditional Chinese ideology. Emperor of China was never just the ruler of a nation-state, but the ruler who held the Mandate of Heaven to oversee the entire world. That's why China (or Chinese Empire) was also known as the "Celestial Empire", whose ruler was exactly the emperor that held the Mandate of Heaven.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we (i.e. including me) are kind of discussing in circles now. Maybe I will get around looking into that Franke paper mentioned above next week. It certainly looks like a rather relevant source. Yaan (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the core problem is that not only the definition of "China", but also the definition of "Emperor of China" is not well founded or interpreted. It turns out that the traditional meaning of "Emperor of China" and typical modern concept of "Emperor of xxx" (where xxx is any nation-state) are not necessarily the same. The latter concept was not used in imperial China nevertheless, as China ("Middle Kingdom") was never an ordinary state. Until more information is found, I think a less controversial way to say may be something like "Yuan emperors became Emperor of China in traditional sense". Keep this in mind when reading sources.--209.90.140.68 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Franke makes a case (p.79 of his "From tribal Chieftain to Emperor and God" paper, the one (I think) Mainbody quoted above) that the Yuan emperors were really more than just emperors of China in the traditional sense (=huangdi). They were at the same times Great Khans and Buddhist universal rulers. The quote is rather lengthy, I am a bit reluctant to type it in, but his point is that they were, or tried to be, whatever a specific and notable segment of their subjects wished. Yaan (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In this sense, the "transforming" mentioned in the quote above seems to refer more to the image of the Mongol ruler towards the Chinese, not to the ruler himself. Yaan (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not surprised to see such argument, since I have already read almost identical argument that discusses Qing emperors. As stated in the Zhonghua minzu article, "The immediate roots of the Zhonghua minzu lie in the Qing Empire, a multi-ethnic empire created in the 17th century by the Manchus. Faced with the necessity to legitimize their rule over the different peoples that they had conquered, the Manchus sought to portray themselves as ideal Confucian rulers for the Chinese, Grand khans for the Mongols, and Chakravartin kings for Tibetan Buddhists". Given this argument, if Franke's argument is also true, does that mean there was no essential differences between Yuan emperors and Qing emperors at all? In fact, the three titles pointed out by both arguments are also the same, i.e. Emperor of China (or Confucian ruler), Great Khan of Mongols, and Tibetan Buddhist ruler. In this sense, if we state Qing emperors were Emperors of China, does it "refer more to the image of the Manchu ruler towards the Chinese, not to the ruler himself"? However, if this was really just the image of Mongol/Manchu rulers towards the Chinese, why did they (Mongols of the Yuan) send Chinese seals reading "輔國安民之寶" and "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶" ("The Seal of Mandate of Heaven Huangdi who made peace of all barbarians") in Chinese characters to Mongols in Ilkhanate which were used in each of their diplomatic letters, and why did they (Manchus of the Qing) used both "Great Qing State" and "China" interchangeably to refer to their country in each international treaty? In fact, it is also arguable that "Emperor of China" was the main title used by these rulers and all other titles were mainly the images.--Wengier (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't really speak for the Qing emperors, and also think they are a slightly case. For one, Manchu is now a dead language, while Mongolian is very much alive. I also would guess that the Manchu elite did begin to earnestly learn Chinese at some point. As for Franke, he makes a point that the portrayal of Yuan emperors as Chinese emperors was largely the work of Chinese literati (p.13, though I wonder how solid the evidence is here), and gives some evidence on how early Yuan rulers were reluctant to attend Chinese rituals. He actually begins the paper by stating just how different the Yuan were in comparison to earlier Chinese dynasties. The point about the seals is an interesting one, but then we also don't take Il Khan Öljeitü's use of that "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶" seal (which may or may not have been sent by Temür Khagan) as proof of anything. Yaan (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The phenomenon that Manchu language is dead but Mongol language is not may be explained by the fact that Qing ruled much longer than Yuan, although there might also be other explanations. Even if we may not take Il Khan Öljeitü's use of that "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶" seal as a proof of Yuan emperors using Emperor of China as their main title, the use of Chinese seals by Ilkhans (not just this one) does mean something. If Il Khan Öljeitü made the seal by himself to perceive himself on an equal level to Temür Khan (see Talk:Yuan_Dynasty), why does he write Chinese characters instead of Mongol (or Persian) characters in the seal? Does it mean he realized the Yuan had already largely assimilated into the Chinese, which was "superior", so he also made a Chinese seal to perceive himself on an equal level? Also, we all agree that the earlier Chinese seal reading "輔國安民之寶" in Chinese characters used by Arghun's and Ghazan's diplomatic letters was indeed sent by Kublai. Why did he send such a seal to Mongols in Ilkanate if "Chinese emperor" was just the portrayal towards Chinese or if the portrayal of Yuan emperors as Chinese emperors was largely the work of Chinese literati? The Chinese seals do prove Franke's point has severe flaws.--Wengier (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe the use of Chinese characters was just analogous to the use of Latin by Europeans of the time? This is of course just my private conjecture, but there may be more than just one explanation. Yaan (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-Chinese Emperor or Non-Han Emperor? It is wrong to describe Kublai as non-Chinese. He was not a Han, but was a Chinese Mongol. Ethnic Mongols and indeed later ethnic Manchus and other ethnic Asians served in the Chinese military and were as much citizens of China as the Hans. In the same way a Black American is still an American despite his African ancestry. Therefore Kublai was a non-Han Chinese. 81.129.178.188 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Wrong. Completely. He was Mongol in blood thru and thru. 50.111.3.17 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible misattribution of quote

Why is there a quote by Stephanie Meyer? Has anyone verified it? I can't find any book or article written by her in 2005 entitled "Kublai Khan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.249.63 (talk • contribs) --Latebird (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Very unlikely indeed. The name was changed to the current version by an IP earlier this year. The statement as such was added in 2005, then attributed to John Pearson. An author of that name seems to actually have written about Kublai.[1] However, I suspect that this is not the same person as John Pearson (author). It is also not clear yet if we're really talking about a printed book. --Latebird (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Some IP went in and changed it to "John Man". While John Man did indeed publish a relevant book in 2005, the article history makes it unlikely that this quote is from him. Because of that, I've now removed it completely. Anyone who has access to the original source and can cite it properly with page numbers is of course welcome to add it back. --Latebird (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Time of rule

He had been Great Khan until his death in 1294. However, he was not accepted by Chagatai Khanate and Kaidu. But his influence was still strong in Ilkhanate and Golden Horde. You guys don't read modern books that filled with personnal opinions instead ancient sources or early books. That is why I changed his reign date to 1294 --Enerelt (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He became a Great Khan claimant in 1260, just like Ariq Boke (who was in a sense more legitimate), and ruled in China (and Mongolia after defeating Ariq Boke in the battle) ever since, but he was never widely accepted in the west (yes, he did have somewhat strong influence in Ilkhanate, because of the alliance, but even they were essentially self-governing; the influence in Golden Horde was clearly much weaker, and almost next to none during much of his reign, let alone any real authority). When Kublai founded the Yuan Dynasty in 1271, he ruled as Emperor or Great Khan of the Yuan Dynasty (or Empire of the Great Khan) until his death in 1294, and was succeeded by Temur. The Yuan Dynasty since its founding was theorically meant to cover the whole dominions of the pre-split Mongol Empire, yet the fact that he could not exercise actual control over the western khanates made the actual territory of Yuan did not cover the whole Mongol dominions, but just its eastern portion. You are right that it's a bias to simply consider the year 1271 to be a breakup; however, it's also a bias to simply consider it a continuation (which is argued by some, but certainly not a conclusion). To be more precise, the Yuan was actually a mix. The exact nature of the Yuan is a matter of interpretation or debate (in fact, there are many versions as far as I know), and we should avoid defining it explicitly in the article. For people who only consider Yuan to be a continuation of the original Mongol Empire, the period of Kublai's reign as the ruler of the Yuan between 1271 to 1294 may be treated as a continuation; on the other hand, for people who consider the establishment of the Yuan marked a new period, it will also work for them. The neutral point of view (NPOV) is the policy of Wikipedia. For one thing, it's completely a personal opinion to simply assert Yuan to be a khanate of the Mongol Empire; and the fact things had changed significantly during Kublai's reign must not be ignored (unlike many ancient sources had portrayed). Note that ancient sources or books usually contain a lot of ideology or historiography-based materials that must be treated with great caution, and Wikipedia must not stick to any particular historiography (e.g. Chinese or Mongolian). Also, we should NOT do original research, especially with respect to primary sources such as historic documents and recordings. In many cases we should follow academic conventions already established by scholars (this of course does not include the works that filled with personal opinions) when editing encyclopedias like Wikipedia, rather than expressing our own interpretations or views from historic sources. That's why I seldomly put these kinds of materials in Wikipedia without careful selection, but usually only in discussion forums, etc, though I do have access to many ancient sources.--Choulin (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Choulin, I respect your opinion. That's just your point of view.--Enerelt (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem if you consider it's my point of view, and thanks for respecting my opinion. And the same also applies to your opinion. However, Wikipedia policies such as no original research and neutral point of view (NPOV) as mentioned above are not my opinion, but the rule of Wikipedia, and thus must be obeyed when editing Wikipedia articles.--Choulin (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I became a bit emotional when I saw your statement "You guys don't read modern books that filled with personnal opinions instead ancient sources or early books" above. As implied a moment ago, I absolutely respect your opinion, but I think the Wikipedia policies also needed to be followed.--Choulin (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ideally, every statement should be attributable to a reliable source. Rejecting a source just because it is new is probably a bad idea, as in most cases newer sources will have access to more recent research. If several equally reputable sources disagree, then this disagreement must be documented in the article. Our own opinions (mine or yours) don't matter at all, so we can't decide on our own who is right or wrong. Please let's keep those principles in mind when editing. --Latebird (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(Marco Polo in China?) I think i have found a mistake...

It says in the article - "The Polos arrived in Rome in 1269, receiving an audience from Pope Gregory X, and they set out with his blessing but no scholars." On the Pope Gregory X page, its says that he was elected pope in 1271 , so how is this possible??? ShaitanLord (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Polo family met him right before he was chosen as Pope Gregory X.--Enerelt (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't delete the paragraph about his anti-Taoist activity. --Enerelt (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
By all Chinese and Mongolian historical records there was never a Marco Polo. Marco Polo by most schoralars is deemed to be alegend. I do beleive you account of Marco Polo should be revisited by serious historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.10.228 (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You might want to read the last four paragraphs of the Did Marco Polo go to China? article, or (even better) check the sources provided therein. Yaan (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Cultural references

Cruft - Family Guy? - come on. Jooler 08:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

holy crap people - how can you leave Citizen Kane out of this entry? Notable? Strong Agree. 71.79.245.231 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You agree with yourself, how nice. However, how does the incidental fact that Kane happened to name his mansion "Xanadu" explain anything relevant about Kublai Khan and his life? Please remember that this article is not about Xanadu, which makes this "reference" utterly irrelevant here. --Latebird (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hardly incidental. "Narrator of Newsreel: Legendary was Xanadu where Kubla Khan decreed his stately pleasure dome. Today, almost as legendary is Florida's Xanadu ...", and "Narrator: Here in Xanadu last week, Xanadu's landlord was laid to rest, a potent figure of our century, America's Kubla Khan - Charles Foster Kane.".
However, I agree that the mention does not belong here, but rather, it belongs over at Kubla Khan (and at Xanadu (Citizen Kane), and Citizen Kane, both of which lack any mention). Xanadu has a mention, but it isn't sourced currently. An explicit reliable source would be helpful, for any addition. The anon might like to try this search, to find some: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
(Also, sarcasm is not helpful to anyone here. Please don't. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
From Kublai's perspective, anything relating to Kane or Welles (or Coleridge) is absolutely incidental. Normally I'd agree about the sarcasm, but in some situations a little irony can't be helped... --Latebird (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If South Park, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, and Netflix belong, then surely Citizen Kane does, too. If that is "unnecessary trivia", then the rest is as well. In fact it and the Coleridge are likely the least "tenuous" references in the section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Those (modern, western) cultural references are all in the Xanadu article, instead. Any fixes/additions/deletions should go there, not here. Acwilson9 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"The" ceremony?

In the "Early Years" section is, "On his way back home after the conquest of Khwarizmian Empire, Genghis Khan performed the ceremony on his grandsons Mongke and Kublai after their first hunting in 1224 near the Ili River." What ceremony? Could an expert on 13'th Century Mongolian culture maybe drop in a name, say the "manhood ceremony" or something? CarlFink (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Yuet-Meng 2.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yuet-Meng 2.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

removed map of 1260 Mongol Empire

Keith Pickering - I appreciate your efforts, but the map is flawed. The Mongols never had authority that far north, for one thing. In fact, it is arguable that they even extended their power to the northern tip of Lake Baikal - why? because there was nothing of value to them there. I will be happy to provide you with a map that you can use as a basis to create an accurate one, if you wish. For now, the map that was posted in the article is unreliable and had to go. I think I know what you based it on as the 'net is full of erroneous (possibly exaggerated by Mongol nationalist or enthusiasts of the Mongol conquests) maps that show the Mongol suzerainty going up to the artic! The Mongols never explored the northern portions of Siberia, and the sparsely populated people that lived there probably never knew of their existence. The Mongols only invaded areas that they considered useful to exploit - permafrost tundra would have no value to them. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Romantic 19th-century view of Kublai's four elephants"

The section on Nayan's rebellion contains a pretty neat picture of Kublai's four-elephant mobile battle fortress, but without any context. I'm curently reading Marco Polo so I know that this was apparently used in this campaign, but there is no mention of this in the text. Also, is "romantic" really an accurate or meaningful description? Looking at the exampes of art on Romanticism, it doesn't seem to match that style, so I presume its just meant to imply "19th century and fanciful". Iapetus (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Succession

When Kublai died, Temur Khan became the second Yuan emperor. This should be mentioned in this article. Kortoso (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kublai Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kublai Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kublai Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kublai Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kublai Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kublai_Khan/Archive_1&oldid=1095512366"