Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Facts

Let's see it is a little hard to work out what you're demanding. Territorial size. The way that Mongol apologists calculate it is to include all territory that lacked an alternative government. Yet it is obvious that the vast bulk of the Mongol Empire was not even slightly controled by the Mongols. Siberia is a good example of this. The Mongols did not go there and they certainly did not rule it. So why count it? Britain ruled Canada right up to the tundra and exercised real administrative control too. Enforced their laws. A very different thing. Paranoia? Over time Genghis gets around to killing or betraying all his allies. Even the Secret History, which is generally sycophantic, makes this clear. Jamuka is one example. Jochi is another. Ong Khan is yet another. The Yasa is not a chivralic code of honor and the article should not claim it is. There is no evidence Genghis killed only to inspire terror. In fact I can't remember him discussing the issue. What other complaints do you have? And don't just revert the article - change things if you must, but there was a lot of copy-editing too. Leave that. Lao Wai 13:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey stupid, I don't know how to answer to your bigoted questions and bigoted answers. There is not word to explain it to you. Words like "paranoia" "crazy" doesn't have a place in history. It just doesn't cut it. Jamuka betrayed genghis Khan and he offered his blood brother to him but he said he wanted to be executed. Genghis considered Jochi to be his son officially but there was skepticism among his family. Yasa IS A CODE OF HONOR, IDIOT, IF YOU READ LIKE SOME HUMANS DO. STOP MAKING SHIT UP, STUPID YASSA. READ READ READ IDIOT.

Please phrase your questions properly. I am not sure that this approach is going to work for you. But whatever. Words like paranoia and crazy do have a place in history. Historians use them all the time. You have to be careful with them though. It may be a coincidence that GK fell out with so many people. But I suspect not. The problem with Jamuka is that he never got to write any of the history - and the Secret History is biased in GK's favor. But read it and think. It is not that simple as the SH makes clear. How did he betray GK exactly? GK was preparing to fight his son when he died. So there was a time when GK accepted him, but by the end he was a little strange. How do you know the Yasa is a code of honor? No copies of it survive. There is nothing in it, from what we can tell, that would suggest honor as most people would understand it. Why do you claim it is? Lao Wai 05:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are red links. The Yasa of Genghis Khan is a code of law, of sorts, but only of those laws that were not already established by tradition amongst the Mongol nomads. siafu 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

But how do we know? There is, I agree, nothing obviously original in it. But as it was secret when it existed and now does not exist at all, who can say? Lao Wai 05:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that Yasa didn't exist and was not code of law. So the burden of proof is on you, not me, to provide "evidence" that Yasa was not a code of law. Just don't talk. Give the source and references.

No, I am clearly not making the assumption that the Yasa did not exist. Nor am I making the assumption that is was not a code of law. You may have noticed I say so clearly above and also I do not make those changes to the article. What I say is that it is not a code of honor and if it was we would not know anyway because it was secret (and hence by the way existed) and now does not exist anymore. There is no burden of proof on me to prove any claim you make, only those claims I make. And please sign your posts with four tildas (~). Lao Wai 08:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

And also read Jochi, he was possibly planning to attack his father because he was basically deserted to the Siberian region because almost all of GK sons didn't acknowledge him as legimiate son, so he was bitter and was trying to rebel and GK knew that. Jamuka formed a coalition against Temujin by getting elected as Gur Khan by Khara Khitan Khanate and that was the final breachment of blood brother between him and Temuujin, it was simple as that. You are right, there is no "complete" copy of it, but there are a lot of Middle eastern and Chinese accounts of set of laws that were being enforced by people in Mongol Empire, and that's the fact. Don't try to override and simplify history. Just search "Yassa" or "Yasa" on google and you'll find out. It was code of law and nothing to do with "honor" my friend. It was set of rules and regulations that everyone should abide by the people under Mongol Empire. It was very cultural and specific to Mongolian culture and heritage. It required to follow certain Mongol customs that still exists today like hunting less animals before the winter, providing people with food when they are travelling, sharing food, helping his soldiers and it was specific as hell.

Evidence that Jochi was planning on attacking his father is interesting. Odd how GK manages to fall out with everyone (who it turns out are plotting against him). Might make you think he was perhaps a little paranoid. I flatly reject your historical claims, but anyway, how is that a breech? GK ought to have been happy for his friend. Of course the Secret History says that J asked GK for advice on where to graze and thinking it over GK decided that was a plot and ran for it. What does that say about the mental stability of GK? Really? Where are these Middle Eastern and Chinese accounts of the sets of laws? In China they enforced Jin law, not Mongol law, at least for the Chinese. I agree it had nothing to do with honor. Good to see you have come over to my point of view on that. It did not apply to everyone - not to the Chinese for instance. How do you know what it said? Lao Wai 08:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai, I personally don't think GK was crazy at all -- I think he was merely one determined son of a bitch who could not tolerate anybody who might pose a challenge to him. I guess after what he went through in his early life, a little paranoia re. lack of loyalty couldn't hurt...

And, yeah, I am a major GK apologist. I think I have mentioned that earlier... --Dietwald 16:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Inferring information about the mental state of Genghis Khan is original research. Unless you have a source that labels him "paranoid", you should leave that claim out. siafu 12:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see that, I already changed it so see what you think. But I can probably find a source that labels him paranoid if you like. Notice though that much of the section it is in infers his character. Should I ask for it all to be sourced too? Lao Wai 13:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You should. If it's as obvious as you're implying it is, then this shouldn't be difficult. siafu 18:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

My friend, I will continue to revert any changes you make unless you give me some credible source, references, facts, and books supporting any of your claim that he was "paranoid", lier, crazy, murder, saint, lover, kisser, father, mother... I'm very serious about it and don't try to make your POV into this article and your frustration with GK as times were cruel in the 13th century and he wasn't a real nice person. Think stuff objectively and then write. What does everyone know about this man, not what the Chinese "think" about them. Provide sources and you will be good to go, and don't try adding or chaning stuff without source, because it will be reverted all the time and very fast. Don't try if you don't have evidence.

Actually I think that would not be a good idea. Not only is it against Wikipedia policy, but it is just not a nice way to treat people. I've tried to modify my comments. Look at them and see what you think. It is better to talk than to fight and better yet to avoid revert wars. If every unsourced POV from the pro-GK revisionists was removed from this article there would be little left. Lao Wai 08:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

please stop the edit war, we are not in the 13 century anymore

User 67.177.214.75: please stop reverting the entire article. Your last revert is in violation of the W:3RR. Besides, it is especially not appropriate when the previous author has copy-edited considerably and thoughtfully. Why don't you instead edit those particular paragraphs where you feel necessary, and use this discussion page to substantiate your position and to reach an agreeable solution in a civil dispute.

This becomes a disruption for other authors who would also want to contribute to the article. - Introvert ^talk 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Merger with Temp

Dear all, there is a copy of this article (probably a dated version) on Genghis Khan/temp. I would suggest somebody take a look to see which information should be salvaged (some of the pictures look nice), and then put the temp article up for deletion. Enjoy! :-) --The Minister of War 10:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

         an ENCYCLOPEDIA is where people go to find answers! you don't edit things in an encyclopedia!!!!!!! STOP LETTING PEOPLE EDIT THINGS!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!

Why should the edit be stopped?! It should be well controlled, but not entirely prevented. After all the idea of this particular encyclopedia is to have the right to give also your personal opinion. As you see if a certain topic becomes disputed a new page is opened where one can discuss what should be written and why. Even now the topis is full of silly mistakes ( i'm talking about mistakes, concerning the language, not the facts, cause i'm not a historian and therefore i don't know any facts that would help in defending a certain position in an argument) which worsen the quallity of the topic. I haven't created an account yet and most probably won't, but if you'd like to adress me do so refering to me as running_wild.

Loyal betrayer

Quoting the article:

Genghis Khan murdered his own brother by shooting him in the back. He turned on some allies, like Jamuqa, and defeated them in open battle. Some he executed in secret, through deception. Even his eldest son was the target of a planned military campaign just before Genghis died.

In all ways Temujin was a very capable leader. He was ruthless to enemies, yet very generous and loyal to friends

First the article says he betrayed and murdered friends and then says he was loyal to friends? Am I missing something?? --Daniduc 07:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That's good point. The last sentence shouldn't be there. I'll remove it. It's also false.

Part of it is false; the claim regarding the campaign against Jochi has at least some historical basis according to Ratchnevsky. The case for Jamuka, however, is much more muddled. siafu 03:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution?

This article seems to be evolving, but it is not exactly clear in what direction. Take a look at the version by siafu on August 4. While I like the timeline, in general since then the intro and overview have gotten worse, the grammer has declined and unsupported assertions have increased. Most of the edits have been from anonymous IPs, and nobody is sourcing their inserts. What, exactly, are we striving for here? We need some sort of consensus. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Thing is, once the article is wonderfully polished up, anons will continue to edit :-) Lets at least bring the old introduction back in, i agree its much nicer. --The Minister of War 06:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this somewhat. But we need more info on this page. I think info is important with proper citations rather than this page being just nice. I think more info the better, but with citations and references. Copyediting is simpler than developing this article with content. I think having more content is important than this article being grammatically correct somehow. 67.177.214.75 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit request -- work done/ notice removed

The article is excellent and really very fascinating: anyone with an interest in Medieval Europe, or the Middle East, or the Silk Road, or Chinese history, or "empires" of any sort, will want to read it. Kudos to whoever wrote the original: it reads well.

I just have completed a couple of overall edits, to try complying with the Copyedit Request notice currently posted here. I'll eliminate that notice now, as well: I am sure that some minor edits remain, but I hope my efforts have caught most of those which originally were here. Largely a matter of minor English/American grammatical and stylistic quirks: verb tenses, etc. Also a "cascade of khans", perhaps the result of some global edit which someone did, which I have broken up so that now the full "Genghis Khan" appears infrequently and is followed by a number of smaller & more friendly "Ghenghis" and "Genghis'" -- looks very odd in English otherwise, and definitely weird in American.

I'll do some cleanup and standardization now on the bibliography. I hope others here will add the non-Mongol / Mongolian side to Genghis' story, which is nothing if not controversial -- I have Hungarian ancestors, and they have memories of this guy there... -- the addition of a few (there are many) authoritative books on what it meant to be Chinese or Middle Eastern or European, and facing Genghis' "hordes", would make this rendition less one-sided and more "human".

But as is, it still is a fascinating account: particularly for those of us who, as the article points out, are more accustomed to the non-Mongol / Mongolian side of Genghis' story. After all, if this guy is Great-Grandpa -- as the article's cited geneticists apparently have shown -- we ought to give him at least an even break.

--Kessler 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. That really means something. I have been developing this article for almost 2 years now with a bunch of other people's support, especially the good points for Good old polonius. We had a lot of arguments and fights over the content. I thought it would be true to life to develop this article from a different culture while not going too much on one direction. Genghis is a really powerful figure in Mongolia and in Asia and many, many, many....many people are proud of him. I hope this article makes it into FAC someday. This dude is nothing more than a human, with bloods, tears, and sweats and I agree that army for "horde" or whatever child seems childish. Fear gives hate. Whenever someone hates, there is always fear. When there is no hate, there is no fear. Don't be afraid of this guy and Mongols coming up eating your children, and blowing you out of existense. They are humans trying to make a living and get through the day. We are all humans! and matter of fact Mongols are kind a poor right now. So they might need your help ;) 67.177.214.75 19:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the very nice thanks. The point about Genghis is the point about very many other articles here: that they originally were written, in the old World Book and Britannica and other encyclopedic sources which we all knew and loved, from one particular cultural point of view -- in the case of English language resources, primarily from the British Empire cultural point of view, in fact. Now that empire has faded, and the particular "imperial" culture it represented has faded with it: the outlines of its modern replacement/successor are not entirely clear to me, or I think to anyone yet, but it does seem that it will be more ecumenical, at least -- also a little more interest-balancing, and a bit less linear and "progress"-minded -- than its predecessor.

So, for me, reading a Mongolian view of Genghis is a pleasure, as it is so very different from the European views, of him and his role, with which I was raised: not that either view is the only one, or the sole correct one -- both have some truth in them, I am sure -- Genghis was cruel, and the Mongols did pillage, as my Hungarian ancestors would attest. But we need both versions, at least, plus several others perhaps. The Chinese have a third view of him. I am sure that someone in Samarkand might write a fourth, and someone in Russia a fifth. (It's like my mother's shock at discovering that the much-admired "Sir Francis Drake, Buccaneer", of her British childhood, was the bloodthirsty "Francisco Drago, Pirata" of her Spanish schoolfriends' educations...) All versions would be of great interest to me, and to anyone truly interested in a well-rounded view of this colorful guy Genghis, I believe.

I long have wondered what medium might convey such an ecumenical view of such a controversial figure. With Genghis we need such repositionings of people like Alexander the Great, for example, or of Attila, or of any leading national or other "hero". Scholarship tends to make things narrow. I thought television might help, but the imagery there tends to make things more narrow still: on tv and in the movies, one mustache, or a single facial expression gone wrong, and *poof* the image alters. I'd rather see text, and let my own imagination do the work. So Wikipedia may be the place: we can get all these different views in, here, and keep the image of a complicated guy like Genghis growing and changing as more and more different people contribute. Very interesting process.

--Kessler 22:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Made a minor change: Corrected spelling from "skilful" to "skillful" --User:Thorton

That's not a correction, nitwit. Find a dictionary.

Image of Genghis Khan

I believe that the image shown as being Genghis Khan is actually his grandson, Kublai Khan. A picture in my World History textbook (McDougal Littell- World History: Patterns of Interactions (c) 2003 on page 300 shows that the picture is actually one of Kublain Khan.

It is Genghis. Kublai Khan's picture is in Khublai Khan. Thanks for the comment though. 71.56.208.91 16:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Afraid of this article being a western gibberish

I'm kind of afraid that this article starts to get tilted to the west. Much balanced sections were removed and replaced with killings and rapes. This is unfair and should be balanced. If you are gonna say somethinga about rape and eating people, you should also include some other positive stuff with it. Some of the section were removed that balanced this article. So be very careful when you change stuff. If you don't know much about the history, please don't write it into the article instead type it in here and we will edit it and insert it into the article.

Thank you very much!!!

71.56.208.91 19:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Writing about Genghis Khan means taking into account his leadership, military, political ability in addition to his brutality. He was a clear military genius, and sometimes that fact is overshadowed by all the rape and murder.

The Khan's Religion

I'm wondering what religion he was. I'm thinking he was a polytheistic but he might as well have been Buddhist or Ancestral Worshiper.

I think he believes in Mongolian traditional religious beliefs, but I don't think he is that pious...he uses religion for his own gain.

He seems to be shamanistic, which is the traditional religion of the Mongols and many other during the time. Because of the religious tolerance, many religion flourished and many people worshipped all different kinds of religion. In the Mongol capital, there are pictures and drawing based upon other some kind of sources that we see angel fountain in the Mongol capital Kharakhorum right in front of the imperial palace. We see angel with wings blowing a horn or something like that on top of the fountain and water coming down. So I would say shamanism and he seemed to try to extend his life by consulting with Chinese monks and other people that does Chinese stuff like Taoism, buddhism, confucious stuff. He wasn't really hardcore into one religion, and that's why he is the man! 71.56.208.91 00:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope this answers your question

The problem is that Mongolian religion is believed by some (Lev Gumilev) to be derived from Tibetan Bon and ultimately from Mitraism.

Added paragraphs from /temp

I added the extra information from /temp. I don't want people to careleslly delete these paragraphs. Someone please copy edit it and make it not sound like one sided, but that doesn't mean make him look like a cannibal and tended toward the west. 67.190.91.8 00:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

another full edit completed...

Again, it is a fascinating story, well-told. I have left in the requests for citations and supporting information inserted by others: these latter folks are not necessarily challenging the account here -- they may be -- but their appeal for "authorities", sincere or not, would interest me and others as well. The role of women, for example, in Genghis' life: you say he consulted them about warfare... it would be very interesting to know what evidence we have for this. Also the other questions asked by others. Excellent & compelling & much-needed article.

--Kessler 23:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent editing done, Kessler! Thank you. Olorin28 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Disappeared?

Is it me, or did the entire section about military campiagns disappear? Olorin28 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not just you... looks like the entire core of the article, from just beyond the "Uniting" section all the way down to "Death and Burial", just up and disappeared... we'd better investigate...

--Kessler 20:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like something may have happened in between "Revision as of 21:48, 29 November 2005" and "Revision as of 23:18, 29 November 2005". Do you see how that whole section beginning "Genghis began his slow ascent to power" suddenly showed up in the latter edit? Well that's one I did but I never but that section in there: it was in the text already. Is that a glitch?

--Kessler 20:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's been some major and continuing vandalism by 216.124.166.2, I see. I'm going to a) report him / her / it, then b) revert to the "Revision as of 21:48, 29 November 2005", and maybe then try my edits again... Unless somebody has a better idea?

--Kessler 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OK he's reported. I may try contacting him myself and reasoning / threatening etc., the way they say we're supposed to do... ultimately get him blocked if he won't lay off... Problem tho is whether then to revert to "Revision as of 21:48, 29 November 2005": I don't mind redoing my own edits if I have to but sorry to lose those made by others. Pls post here if someone sees Some Other Way?

--Kessler 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not disappeared, only invisible

The missing text was there all the time, only rendered invisible on the page by an unclosed HTML tag. Please see this fuller explanation on WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Essential subject tag

Let's leave the essential subject tag for a little more while and let's see what edit and how much edit can be done on this article, because if we take it out this article won't be edited much. I want it to reach the quality of Napoleon not the same quantity though. Constant improvement is necessary. A lot more comprehensive copyedit, resentencing, moving stuff deleting stuff, messing with it tremendously will help this article. Small copy edits are ok, but it's not helping the article in terms of content and delivery wise. 67.190.113.165 09:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

transcription error

The title Genghis Khan (more properly "Chinggis Khan") is pronounced [ʧiŋgɪs χaːŋ] in modern Khalkha Mongolian. There is no voiced velar fricative in "Chinggis"; the second "i" in "Chinggis" is lax or [-ATR]... like the "i" in English "kiss"; the "kh" is pronounced as a voiceless uvular fricative, and there is a final velar nasal in "khan".

-Andrew

I don't know what happened to uniting the tribes section

Please don't delete sections if you don't know anything about it. It took a lot of people and their effortsa and brain cells to write these section. Some ass*** deleted the uniting the tribes section. Please don't delete anything. If you are afraid of this article becoming more elaborate than Napoleon and Alexander, be no afraid, because he was much stronger, tougher and whipped their asses in a mili-second battle.! (just to the person who deleted that section).

Meaning of Name

Am I just blind or did the reference to the meaning of the name Temujin disappear? Dietwald 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it got moved to the bottom of the article. Olorin28 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

DNA Legacy

Is it worth mentioning some of the research about this topic? For example, http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20030205-100301-1566r

Ff123 20:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is another bs that people write out on the web and pretend that it happened. Personally I'm kinda skeptical about writing this into the article at the present moment. I would almost totally support writing a paragraph about it at the end of the article if it comes from a university source, for example like from a ".edu" domain. It would be more helpful if it was from Harvard, Princeton, Columbia and such. At this point I think this is just someone saying and talking sh**. I might disagree with others, but university sources and actual professor interviews and credible sources will help. Instinctively, that whole article is pretty funny and makes me laugh. What evidence, source? What DNA, how and why? How did that happen, and even if it happened? how do you know it was him, how did you pinpoint to one person. Is it mostly an assertion or hypothesis, because it looks like one. Science requires basically taking Genghis Khan's DNA and comparing it with 5 or 6 million people that it says are descended from him? That would be an evidence and until then it's nothing in the scientific community. 67.190.113.165 11:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the original article from the American Journal of Human Genetics: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n3/024530/024530.html Ff123 02:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And it even has the print citation info right at the top. Perfect. siafu 03:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of DNA legacy...

Don't you think this article should contain a mention of Douglas Adams's The Private Life of Genghis Khan? ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist -- that piece is really one of DNA's last legacies...)

Possible ethical issue in section Legacy/Negative/"Negative aspect..."

The current text reads:

"Negative aspect of Genghis Khan and his rule is the brutal and unmerciful attitude and action against resistance and defiance to his rule in terms of civilian casualty and property destructions, although there are some exceptions. For example, war with Khwarezmid Empire was caused by provocation by the Shah by defying the emergence of a new rule on the East by killing the Mongol diplomats and later refusing to pay repayment for sacking the convoy sent by Genghis Khan."[sic]

There are some objections one might raise against this passage on ethical grounds. In particular, wars should perhaps not be represented as having been "caused by provocation". War may be chosen as a response to provocation. But to suggest war, or any other violent act, is caused by provocation, may by extension be seen to be tantamount, for example, to condoning terrorism and exonerating terrorists. This reference seems especially pertinent since, in the article as it currently stands, it would appear that the reader is being asked to understand that in some sense the slaughter that Genghis Khan visited upon the innocent civilian population of Khwarezm was an inevitable consequence of the perfidy of their leaders, and therefore not really his fault. This argument does feel like an apology, and as such I described it in a previous redaction (since overwritten). Does the author not agree that the moral responsibility for violence on any scale must ultimately rest with those who perpetrate that violence, irrespective of any provocation they might claim to have suffered?

In my suggestions I do not mean to attack Genghis Khan specifically. To judge such an historically distant figure as Genghis Khan by today's ethical ideals seems fruitless, naive and unfair. My objection is to the extended implications engendered in juxtaposing material concerning the slaughter of civilians with the language of provocation and redress - implications I find bitterly relevant to modern times. That such usage be somewhat apologetic seems like it ought to be fairly clear. Please let us acknowledge slaughter and barbarism for what they are: choices to be expunged from mankind's repertoire of justifiable responses by the grace and march of civillisation.

Best wishes,

A Wikipedia fan.

The analogy to terrorism is somewhat nonsensical; warfare in the time of Genghis Khan bears little to no resemblance to warfare in the modern era. Civilians were slaughtered as a matter of course by all conquering armies, it wasn't a special case for "terrorists" or "evil" leaders. However, it is fair to note that saying that the war was "caused by provocation" is rather ridiculous. Certainly, there was provocation by the Khwarizm Shah, a foolish provocation in the form of the slaughter of merchant caravans, but this was in response to Genghis Khan's demand for tribute -- a clear first step in establishing control over his neighbor. If we start laying blame on provocation, it's an endless and pointless debate as to which side is the provocateur, especially if we're resorting to more modern sensibilities (e.g., analogizing to terrorism). siafu 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Wikipedia fan and siafu from my point of view is that I acknowledge that it sounds little bit like it was his fault, but the fact of the matter is that Genghis Khan was trying to open up trade relationship with Khwarezmian Shah and officialy sent his caravan with traders to the state with messenger asking for trade and peace. Look at the wikiquote and what Genghis Khan actually tried to do through his quote at wikiquote. The important thing is, this war is not provoked by Genghis Khan, but it was Shah himself was getting uncomfortable with the new unified Mongol power in the east under Genghis Khan and killed the convoys and sacked everything, burned the messengers beards and sent them back to Genghis Khan, but all he was asking was just trade and peace. From Genghis Khan's point of view, this was a disgrace and he took it as an insult to his character, decency and undermining his character. This is just plain ignorance and carellesness the way Shash acted unfortunately.

Secondly, the whole barbarism killing people that resisted is already clarified many times that he killed at lot, but I think there should be balance and stay true to what happened. Resistence was crushed merciless and that is written there already. So I think we are showing the good and bad rather well without tilting to one side. Yes killing people no matter what is bad, but we got to look at specifically how the war was conducted against the Shah. In other words, GK didn't kill all the inhabitants, and those that surrendered he guaranteed them protection. Killing is bad, but let's look at the cause without making rush judgment and stay neutral and let the people decide whether the killing was worth it for many who died because of resistance, or we can write that "Genghis Khan attacked Khwarezmid Empire because the Shah (leader) sacked the convoys, killed the messengers and didn't pay repayment for sacking of the convoys to Genghis Khan and burned the messengers' beards back to Genghis Khan." If this was Adolf Hitler sending caravan for peace and trade with Poland, and the president of Poland attacks, kills, sacks and sends the beards of the diplomats back to Adolf Hitler, how would any leader act? Hitler would be furious because there is a player who doesn't want to play a specifically designed game like others. Any leader would attack because this would be a threat (possibly future) to his state, simple thought process and needs to be crushed no matter what. It would clearly be a declaration of war.67.190.113.165 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The real problem with the statement is that Genghis Khan attacked Khwarezim Shah both because the shah attacked his convoys and just as importantly because he was intent on expanding his empire. Attacking merchants was a rather common tactic, and was later used by the Chagatai Khanate against Kublai Khan; it did not automatically mean war, it merely focussed Genghis Khan's attention (inferentially he had seemed to be more interested in northern China at the time). Trying to chalk it up to provocation on one side or the other is not productive. Both sides were belligerent, and this was, though more than simply a pretext, not the central cause of conflict. siafu 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Say ye unto the Khwarezmians that I am the soveign of the sunrise, and [he is] the soverign of the sunset. Let there be between us a firm treaty of friendship, amity, and peace, and let traders and caravans on both sides come and go." - Genghis Khan expressing is intention for peace with Khwarezmian Empire. Genghis didn't have the intention of attacking and conquering Khwarezmian empire, but his focus was on rich and powerful China. I think that needs to be clarified and therefore those text should be reworded like I did on the top. That's important and I think you might be missing this point. How would you say and include the previous statement into the article? I think it is pretext and the cause of the conflict, both 67.190.113.165 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the point in having this statement in the "negative" section was to cast doubt on finger-pointing in this instance. The fact is that Genghis Khan was definitely committed to an expansionist policy, definitely saw Khwarezim as an inferior power and definitely felt that Khwarezim should accept a more vassal-like stance (hence the demand of tribute). One could just as well argue that the reaction to that of attacking caravans would be justified. I'm not making said argument, but it's important to remember that there is no innocent party involved. There's no doubt in my mind that Genghis Khan would have attacked or attempted to more fully dominate Khwarezim eventually anyway, once the Jurchin were dealt with. It's pointless to chalk it up to provocation, period, though not pointless to note that the attack was the spark that lit the powder keg. I think we coudl include the statement, but it's not essential-- it would be better to strike the negative section and explain all this at the relevant point in the narrative section. Would that sit well? siafu 02:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know where are you getting information from "expansionist" policy of Genghis Khan against KE and requiring them to be vassal in one way or form. Secondly, I also don't know where are you getting information about GK demanding "tribute" from Khwarezmian empire. I don't think GK demanded tribute from KE in any way and I don't see any sources saying such. It's not what matters "in your mind" that is appropriate to be included in the article, and you can't make assumption and hypothesize that GK would've attacked KE one way or another and eventually, and expect your assumption to be included in the article. I'm talking about facts and if you show me (and us) the evidence and source that GK demanded tribute from KE and had the future intention of attacking KE after Jurchen is done. I would be more inclined to support you. Secondly Jurchen wasn't conquered totally and the leader of Jurchen relocated his capital to the south in the area closer or in the Song Dynasty territory. So war with Jurchen wasn't done and there was still Song existing down there, which GK thought was much more important and powerful than KE. Show me the evidence for these two points please, until then this is clearly GK = peace, KE = war or something rather like that. Thanks for your input though and I hope we can come to a concensus on this and clarify the point. 67.190.113.165 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Expansionism is obvious; Genghis Khan conquered the largest contiguous land empire in the world and it didn't happen by accident. As to the extension of Mongol power toward Khwarezim, the Khagan addressed Khwarezim Shah as 'the best loved of my sons" - a very clear indication of sovereignty. Regardless, the main point is that this is all splitting hairs, and we're having the very debate I have multiply identified as not productive. I'm suggesting removing the section it's in and explaining properly at the proper point in the narrative. siafu 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Mongol custom for the elderer person to address the younger person respectfully as "son"... not sure about this though. Olorin28 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not really making sense though. Please provide evidence and you can't really just assume things. Thanks 67.190.113.165 00:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The issues is whether it's appropriate to make a statement like "the war was caused by provocation", whether or not such provocation happened. We've just done three rounds over that issue, and seeing that this could go on forever, I'm feeling pretty done about it. If there's an assumption, cite it. Otherwise, are you going to provide an opinion on what we should do with the article regarding this statement or not? siafu 02:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok it sounds like it would be much better if we say something like this, "GK sent caravan to KE for the official purpose of opening about trade between the empires. Shah of KE executed the missionaries and didn't pay repayment. Shortly thereafter GK attacked and conquered KE." These sentences are exactly like the ones on the top of the article. I think there should be a "negative" section under legacy as a final word in one way or not in order to balance with the "positive." What do you think? 67.190.113.165 01:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(shifting back to the left...) I think that it would be better if the final section were restructured in such a way as to avoid creating such a diametric opposition. At the end, we can refer up to the statements in the narrative at points, but we don't need to present it as a list of negative vs. a list of positive. I'll put something together tomorrow to illustrate what I mean. siafu 07:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Population

China clearly had more than 80 million people before the Mongol conquest. There is only one good work on this: Ho Ping-ti. 1970. "An estimate of the total population of Sung-Chin China". Études Song in memoriam Étienne Balázs, ed. F. Aubin. First Series, 1:33-53. He takes a slightly lower figure of at least 110 million, but going on average household size, 120 million is probably about right. As for the apologies for the fascist regimes, where do I start? Genghiz had no idea of or interest in democracy. The rest is speculation and if I am not mistaken, apologising for the Fascists. There is no purpose keeping it in. Lao Wai 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Genghis Kahan and Democracy

Why did you remove the passage? It was backed by several internet sources, and is strongly supported by the Modern World book as a paper source.--Gary123 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

GK probably never heard the words democracy. He certainly gave no signs of wishing to implement it. I will agree modern Mongol scholars have problems integrating their national hero with half-decent values, but as this is fictional, hypothetical and mostly about how modern Mongols interpret the past, it has no relevance to this article. Is it about GK? No it is about how some modern people like to think of him. Lao Wai 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

He was only a youngster when his mom saw something wrong with him. He was getting horny when he saw a guy walk by. He started to bacome a homosexual. So his mom brought a teen age girl from the local school home. She forced her to get undressed in fornt of Genghis. And genghis liked. Since he was the same age as her he got very attracted. That is the first time he had sex

I think this is one of the cutest vandalisms i see in wikipedia. Kudo to the person (most likely a school kid) that wrote this. Cute one :-) 67.190.113.165 00:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need this? Olorin28 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)