Talk:Mongol Empire

Religious freedom?

The article states at Mongol Empire#Early organization: "In addition to laws regarding family, food, and the army, Genghis also decreed religious freedom ...." However, three paragraphs later, under Mongol Empire#Religious policies, it states, "Genghis Khan and a number of his Yuan successors placed restrictions on religious practices they saw as alien. ... Muslims were forbidden from halal or zabiha butchering, while Jews were similarly forbidden from kashrut or shehita butchering, both of which were incompatible with the Mongolian method of butchery. Referring to the conquered subjects as 'our slaves,' Genghis Khan demanded they no longer be able to refuse food or drink, and imposed restrictions on slaughter." Then, after a blockquote, it states again, "Genghis Khan arranged for the Chinese Taoist master Qiu Chuji to visit him in Afghanistan, and also gave his subjects the right to religious freedom, despite his own shamanistic beliefs."

What is the basis for saying that Genghis Khan allowed "religious freedom" in light of these restrictions on Muslims and Jews? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Preceded By:

Someone has removed all mentions of the states which preceded the Mongol Empire, which goes against the usual policy Wikipedia has of including all predecessor states or cultures, see the Austria-Hungary article for example Godzillasizedemu (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think this is correct - there are far too many of them; the list was not even that complete. Roman Empire and Roman Republic only list a single domestic predecessor. The infobox is far too cluttered even without them. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem unaware that Wikipedia guidelines supplant vague precedent; MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance...wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Having a non-exhaustive list of a dozen entities, some of which hadn't been around in any meaningful way for decades (Khamag Mongol) or centuries (Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate), goes directly against the purpose of an infobox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Might not there still be some merit in listing just the Khamag Mongol and the four successor Khanates? I agree that the full list is ridiculous, confusing and unhelpful, but what about the minimalist approach? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I am in favour of just including the four successor states. Khamag Mongol cannot be considered a predecessor state in a meaningful way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree, but the four successor states are all mentioned in the quick timeline, so I think we are good as we currently are. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I added khamag mongol to preceded country

Please Don't Delete it. Unfriendly770 (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation is not allowed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: you must be kidding. Khamag Mongol is a loose confederation. What speculation are you talking about? Beshogur (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a loose confederation. So loose, in fact, that no one knows what precisely is being talked about. I've just looked at seven sources of the early Mongol Empire; not one uses the term "Khamag Mongol", because it can mean literally anything you want it to. Confederation ending with the death of Ambhagai? Sure. The tribe to which Yesugei belonged? Why not. The forces Temujin built up? If you want. Anything so problematic should be given the same prominence reliable sources give it — none. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You might be right. I'll research this further. Beshogur (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 After my researches,I finally know its a a tribe conferation, but what speculation are you talking about? Unfriendly770 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was a real existed tribe conderation Unfriendly770 (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Find reliable sources clearly explaining details of the Khamag Mongol. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Flag of the Mongol Empire

There are various candidates for an accurate mongol flag/banner. One of these are the Mongol Suldes. Ancient records talk about the black and white banners of Genghis Khan, which could easily be identified as the mongol war suldes. Could I add these to the page?

There's also the Tamga of Genghis Khan, could I possibly add that to the page?

There's also the early mongol flag from the year 1310 shown in Alfred Znamierowski's World Encyclopedia of flags, could this page be considered a reliable source? And if so, can I add it to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sci Show With Moh (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, as at Talk:Yuan Dynasty, what makes you think that the flags of the Mongol Empire are a) meaningful b) accurate and c) definable as "flags" in the modern sense of the term? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not a very pressing issue, but I don't see any problem with adding it. It wouldn't be in conflict with MOS:FLAG. The potential problem is whether or not a representation of the flag can be found in a reliable source, as you said. Personally I think it's fine either way. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Wether or not they count as "Flags" or not is besides the point, as if they were military standards or any other symbol (which applies to the suldes) i can use it. I won't add them and label them in the modern sense of the term of course, as that didn't exist back then. It doesn't conflict with MOS:FLAG as Professor Penguino said, therefore I can add it, but not under the label of "Flag" of course. (I'd only be adding the suldes, Genghis Khan's Tamga and the imperial seal of Guyuk Khan as seen in Imperial Seal of the Mongols.) The suldes are accurate because they are the universally recognized war banner of the Mongol empire cited in many scholarly sources such as Starr Z Davies, and much more. As for Genghis Khan's Tamga, it is also cited on many scholarly sources, and as for Guyuk Khan's seal, it's literally here on wikipedia. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The Sulde is also described in many ancient records too. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, the tuq banner is already shown on the page in File:Dschingis_Khan_01.jpg; you could add a small caption as found in Genghis Khan#Kurultai of 1206 and reforms. For the tamga, you could use a {{multiple image}} template to directly compare the two seals. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources do not look like RS. Beshogur (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

And the copyright-status is being questioned on Commons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, maybe you could do some of the stuff you told me to do? Also maybe fix the copyright status. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There's always a time to learn, Sci Show With Moh.

• Problem 1: the site you have taken the flag from allows sharing of files only to non-commercial web sites; this is not allowed on Commons per their licensing policy. You'll need to upload it to Wikipedia instead—this is fairly simple, just click the three bars at the top-left of the page, click upload file, and upload under fair use. That's the easy part.
• Problem 2: there is no RS specifically describing this image as the standard of the Mongol khans. There are images on other pages that are analysed by RS—File:Temüjin proclaimed as Genghis Khan in 1206 Jami' al-tawarikh manuscript.jpg has been described by Timothy May, for example. Until you can verify in a RS that this particular image is an accurate representation of what historical sources describe, it will not be suitable for such a prominent place in the infobox. This, I cannot do for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll just add the Tamga of Genghis Khan then Sci Show With Moh (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, This image is a reconstruction of the War Sulde used by Genghis Khan described in various modern & ancient sources. If you're saying that this is unreliable because of the 6 suldes shown, I can fix that. The Mongol's war sulde is described on the wikipedia page for the Tug banner, also known as a sulde banner. Like every ancient banner, there are many different variations of it, the one I added to the page was the one shown on Vexilla Mundi, which is the only vectorized version of the sulde available. The same black war sulde is described in many ancient sources, and the common reconstruction of the sulde. I can't get my hands on some of the ancient records that describe the sulde, but I do know one, and it's the one cited on the page for the Sulde banner. and IMO, that's enough. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It isn't enough. It is considered original research, and explicitly disallowed per WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Vexilla Mundi considered a reliable source? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suspect not. It is effectively a one-man blog maintained by Mello Luchtenberg, who has no known relevant qualifications. However, I could be wrong; feel free to ask for others' opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I was just askin because if it is reliable then that would open up a whole new window of flags that could be added. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't get where the specific design comes. It this documented? Beshogur (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

No, because there are inherent problems with depicting a very flexible and three-dimensional symbol as a static drawing on a white background. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

On a seperate note, there's a flag in Alfred Znamierowski's World Encyclopedia of Flags labeled as "Early Mongol Flag" dated to 1310 CE. Since Alfred Znamierowski was a recognized expert in Vexillology, could I possibly use that instead along with the Tamga of Genghis Khan? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Tamgas might be important, but the tamga doesn't belong to whole Borjigin, so I don't know. Beshogur (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, seeing as a) you clearly have not read the accompanying page which outlines how many different types of flag were used by various people in society, and b) you've completely ignored the date. Seriously, do you really think we're idiots? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Send me the link to said accompanying page Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I put images of mongol standards with proper sources, why did they get deleted? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Because you inserted in the infobox, as if it was a modern flag which represented the entire Mongol Empire, instead of a war banner planted before a battle. This has been explained to you many times now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Roman battle vexillum that served a similar purpose was allowed on the page, why can't something similar be done with this page? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Roman aquilae were very literally symbols of a state, not just war standards held up when there was a battle. If there was a unifying feature of the Mongol Empire, it wasn't a flag, but the Chinggisid bloodline—fairly difficult to represent in 2D. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the vexillums not the aquilae. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There are not multiple vexilla at Roman Empire: which page are you referring to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The main roman empire page. A vexillum is displayed in the infobox. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

See above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The two banners that I displayed in the infobox are the Peacetime banner and the Wartime banner, there is a seperate source for these designations that I can include if you want. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Until you find a source which defines them as a symbol for the entire Mongol Empire, geographically and chronologically, no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It was the vexilloid used by the mongol forces, as I said earlier, the vexilloid used by roman forces is found on the roman empire page, so why can't I do something similar here? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point you are being deliberately obstructive. I said above clearly "The Roman aquilae were very literally symbols of a state, not just war standards held up when there was a battle." I suggest you try to understand the difference, or find sources that claim otherwise. As a reminder, the only source you have provided says "These horse-hair battle standards are among the few artifacts associated with Chinggis Khan that have been preserved to this day. Planted atop a hill, a mountain, or other lofty location, a standard such as one of these would have signaled the beginning of a battle." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually have a source that claims otherwise, Jack Weatherford Genghis Khan, p.XVI, but I forgot to source it on my file. If I sourced this, would you accept it? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (2004)? That is not a sufficiently reliable source: although influential, it contains a large number of factual errors and inaccuracies, and Weatherford does not cite his work. Timothy May summarizes his work as follows: "In the general narrative Weatherford is sufficiently accurate. However, in the details, Weatherford is wrestling with material that he clearly does not fully appreciate." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Would an article from Google arts & culture written by the National Museum of Mongolia (the museum where the banners are found) be a reliable source? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, is Huber Herald a sufficient source? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, there are accounts of said banners in "Secret History of the Mongols". Could I cite that too? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do you never provide links to the sources you're talking about? If this is the Google article you're talking about, it is a reliable source, but doesn't say what you want it to. The other two are obviously not reliable sources, if you had bothered to read WP:RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked does say what I want to say, it says: "The Black Banner was the khan’s battlefield banner, standing for the power of the “Everlasting Blue Heaven,” which can concentrate and mobilise the spirit and power of all Mongols to defeat their enemies at any time in all directions. Folk stories mention that the Black Banner would be raised when the khan was at war." and "White Banner The White Banner is also called ‘Yisun Kholt Tsagaan Tug’ or Peace Banner. It is mentioned in many historical works on the Mongols. The White Banner was raised during times of peace or in a place away from war. From ancient times until the present day, Mongolians have presented offerings to the White Banner. The main part of the White Banner is made from the tails of white mares. The main white banner is surrounded by eight banners. The offering ceremony to the White Banner was held during a grand ceremony once every three years. Since the 19th century this ceremony is part of the annual Naadam celebration."

These both describe the banners that I added to the page, but if I want to cite this for the file, then I should make some changes. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No, what you want it to say is that "this banner was a symbol of the Mongol Empire". You can say that the banner was the symbol of Genghis Khan, which is why there is such a description of the banner in an image caption of his article. By all means, add it to the body, but it is not suitable for the infobox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, but the Roman Vexillum which served a similar purpose was added to the infobox, which is why I think the mongol sulde should be added to the infobox in a similar manner. (The vexillum, not the aquila, by the way.) Also, the symbol of Timur was added to the infobox of the timurid empire. Feel free to correct me if this is wrong and doesn't justify it being added to the infobox though. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, and all modern countries have their flags in the infobox. But we're not talking about modern countries, or Timurid symbols, or the Roman Empire. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here in a way. Unless you provide a reliable source for your claims and outline why it a) is reliable and b) shows that the banners were even a military standard FOR THE MONGOL EMPIRE, I don't intend to continue this vast discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, i'll just put it in the body like you suggested. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree, this is simply an object, not a flag. Beshogur (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Except I never said it was a flag, I said it was a military standard of the mongol empire used in a similar way to the roman vexillums, (According to https://artsandculture.google.com/story/mongolian-empire-the-national-museum-of-mongolia/TwWB3jMjdJwYKg?hl=en) Sci Show With Moh (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about Roman vexillum, however it looks like a flag, this is a tugh, not a flag. Beshogur (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Real size of the Mongol Empire

Hello. I cannot edit the article, so I post this here so that someone who can edit does it.

I found an article called "The Mongol Empire’s Northern Border: Re-evaluating the Surface Area of the Mongol Empire" published on 18 november 2018, by Stephen Pow, from the Saint-Petersburg State University. You can find the pdf of the article here on this link, it's in free access: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329028644_The_Mongol_Empire's_Northern_Border_Re-evaluating_the_Surface_Area_of_the_Mongol_Empire There are many articles on the pdf file, but it's the first one I'm talking about.

It states that the actual belief that the British Empire was the largest empire in history with 33 700 000 square kilometers in 1939, and the Mongol one only the second with 32 500 000 square kilometers in 1279, is false. It proves that in fact, the Mongol Empire was larger than that. Because this number is based on an arbitrary northern frontier wich doesn't include northern Siberia. However, for exemple (all what I say is from the article), there are several sources from Jean de Plan Carpin and Guillaume de Rubrouck, wich all two traveled separately in the Mongol Empire around the years 1245 and 1250, saying that populations from northern Siberia like the Nenets were subjects of the Mongols. Marco Polo says in his book about mongolian expeditions into the "lands of darkness", as he call nothern Siberia (because there's no sun during long periods). There's also an Icelandic geographical treatise from the mid-13th century describing a "tatar kingdom at the north of the russian lands". That's not all, i let you read the article for more evidences. The article concludes that the real size of the Mongol Empire would be around 36 500 000 square kilometers, which would make it larger than the British Empire with a difference of roughly 3 millions square kilometers. Therefor, we should change the text, the map and the infobox of this article with this new information, and I will post the same message in the talk section of the "List of largest empires" page. Thanks for reading. Antochkat Antochkat (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Antochkat, thanks for your comment and your interesting source. Pow's article certainly makes a good case, but the British Empire being the largest in history is established historical consensus, which cannot be overruled on the basis of a single paper. Perhaps this year's upcoming "Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire" will shed light on the issue, or some other source? We must hope. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

You say "the British Empire being the largest in history is established historical consensus". But the fact is that it is not. At the beginning of his article, Stephen Pow explains about this that:

"...thus, the issue of sweeping proportions investigated here is the borders of the Mongol Empire, particularly the question of its northern border. We often read that the Mongols in the thirteenth century possessed “the largest historical empire in terms of contiguous territory,” and its maximum size is set at 24 million km2 . A distinction is made between the British Empire as the largest historical empire at 35.5 million km2 (in 1920) and the Mongol Empire, listed as the second largest, albeit one not divided over several continents. The consistent reinforcement of these numbers and rankings on popular online sources like Wikipedia,2 or Worldatlas,3 makes them something like official, canonical facts".

If there is a popular consensus that the British Empire is the largest, it is because when we compare it with the Mongol Empire, we base ourselves on the arbitrary border of the Mongol Empire resulting from historiography of the 20th century. Antochkat (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me be clear: on a personal level, I completely agree with Pow's argument. But if the popular consensus is wrong, it is wrong—Wikipedia cannot do anything about that, Antochkat. We cannot ignore the historiography of a century, no matter how arbitrary Pow feels it is, without his theory progressing from WP:FRINGE to more established consensus. By design, Wikipedia is meant to be "behind the curve" of research—we must weigh arguments according to their prevalence in reliable sources, and at the moment, Pow is just one against many. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I understand, but can't we at least mention this somewhere, saying it's a fringe theory? Antochkat (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I plan to rewrite the article in the next year, and will include it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox tinkering

@Vishgor: to reiterate: there is a clear consensus for the omission of that from the infobox in previous discussions on this talk page. Not every parameter in an infobox is equally useful in every situation, that's not what infoboxes are for. If a reader would like all of the details, they may read the article, the infobox is for summary at a glance. Remsense诉 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Great Mongolia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Great Mongolia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 28 § Great Mongolia until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Propose to fix the mistake:

Giovanni de Plano Carpini, the pope's envoy to the Mongol great khan, travelled through Kiev in February 1246 and wrote: They [the Mongols] attacked //Russia// - Change to original name - "Ruthenia" as it was in Giovanni's letter. Ruthenia is an exonim of that historical period to name Kiev Rus. It allows to exclude misleading allusion to current russian state that has nothing to do with the Kiev state of that period// , where they made great havoc, destroying cities and fortresses and slaughtering men; and they laid siege to Kiev, the capital of //Russia - Ruthenia//; after they had besieged the city for a long time, they took it and put the inhabitants to death. When we were journeying through that land we came across countless skulls and bones of dead men lying about on the ground. Kiev had been a very large and thickly populated town, but now it has been reduced almost to nothing, for there are at the present time scarce two hundred houses there and the inhabitants are kept in complete slavery. Yoda.Muha (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, we use recognizable names when possible. It's not really relevant to this article that de Plano Carpini was using a different name for the region. The historical Rus' and Russia aren't equivalent or coterminous, but I would argue it's best just to follow sources here. Remsense诉 19:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Imperial Seal

I want to add the Imperial Seal, similar to the Great Qing page. All opposed, speak now or forever hold your peace. OddHerring (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? It's already been contested, so you're the one who has to justify its inclusion per WP:ONUS. I've literally never seen this symbol attested as an important symbol of the empire, so it doesn't belong in the infobox. It seems to be a seal that's purely perfunctory and purely unstylized text. Remsense ‥ 论 00:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

File:LetterGuyugToInnocence.jpg Seal is visible on a letter sent by the Great Khan Güyük Güyük Khan to Pope Innocent IV. OddHerring (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So? That's what seals are used for. We need some attestation that this was an important symbol of the empire. Remsense ‥ 论 00:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, please provide an example of what would prove to you that the Seal of the Great Khan is an 'important symbol of the empire'. OddHerring (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Any source saying that it is, or displaying it prominently as such? Remsense ‥ 论 00:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You mean the letter I just provided to you?.... OddHerring (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No, like a secondary source that says something akin to "the Seal of the Great Khan was an important symbol of the empire", not you making that extrapolation yourself from a primary source. Remsense ‥ 论 00:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, either you are an idiot or are arguing in bad faith. I will figure out a way to go around you now. OddHerring (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say this the most elegant way, but I'm at least not the type of editor that wants to add every pretty picture I happen upon to clutter up articles without giving a damn to justify whether they're actually important or representative. Remsense ‥ 论 07:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Imperial Seal" page seems, like many Mongol Empire-related articles, to be a mess. The seal depicted is a personal seal of Güyük, the third ruler of the empire, as found in a 1246 letter. We know that different rulers (Genghis and Möngke are known) had their own seals, so Güyük's seal should not be depicted as "the imperial seal". If there is an imperial seal, it would be the jade green seal passed down to the Yuan and Northern Yuan dynasties, but it's certainly not the seal you want to add to the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Imperial seal is a signature. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Land" empire

Yuanmongolempiredynasty, an empire can only be on land. Please do not continue reverting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

But what about the British Empire, that was overseas AND larger than the Mongols Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It was not contiguous, and was, again, on land. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you have a fair point Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)