Talk:Ögedei Khan

vgu

What does "vgu" at the end of the article's background section mean? Samnikal 09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

successor

Was he really succeeded by Mongke Khan? I thought he was succeeded by Guyuk Khan. District Attorney 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

He was.104.169.18.4 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Death of Occoday (Ögedei)

Plano Carpini: "For, at the time of our aboard in to the countrey, a certaine duke of Russia named Andreas (Andrej) was accused before duke Bathy for contieying the Tartar horses out of the land, and for selling them to others; and although it could not been prooued, yet was he put to death". Who was this Andrej, and who was his younger brother who was humaliated at the front of the Bathy and his colonels and capitains.

What about this : "For there was taken (to Karakorum for justice) a certane Consubine of the Khan which had poysoned Khan´s father (Occoday) to death to have a iustige of the Mongolols of their own. Moreouer, upon the foresaide Consubine, and many other of her confederants sentence of iudgement was pronounced, and they were put to death (1246) by the way of their own."

How this is linked to foresaide: "At the same time Ieroslaus, the great Duke of Soldal, which is a part of Russia, deceased. For being (as it were for honours sake) inuited to eate and drinke with the Khan of the Khans mother, and immediately after the banquet, returning vnto his lodge, he fel sicke, and within seven dayes, died. And after his death, his body was of strange blew colour, and it was commonly reported via our informanter, that the said Duke was poysoned to the ende that Tartars might free and totally possess his Dukedom".

Khan of the Khans: Ögedai 1229-1241 (poisoned)

Khan of the Khans: not mentioned 1241-1246 (widow of Ögedey?)

Khan of the Khans: Gujug 1246-1248 (poisoned?)

Khan of the Khans: not mentioned 1248-1251 (widow of Gujug?)

Khan of the Khans: Möngke 1251-1259

What is the link between these three and who poisoned Ögedei? From the text we found that word her means she not he. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.205.131 (talk) 05:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Ogedai Kahn wouldn't have conquered all of Europe

John Keegan's History of Warfare discusses the strategies and tactics employed by the Khans. One key area was the use of mobile warfare dependent on their large cavalry. His theory was that after leaving the Steppes, this cavalry would have had serious challenges in feeding the horses - less pasture land - and would have gradually lost enough horses to sustain that type of warfare. It was inevitable, according to Keegan, that they would have failed.

For that reason I feel the section discussing their ability to conquer all of Europe needs to be better balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.81.39 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

i think this european pasture excuse is not enough to doubt the mental toughness of the mongol horde. Mongols have survived the harshest of weathers from the heat of the middle east and the severe winters of kievan rus which btw no other european empire of all time can overcome. If mongols did destroy the fortresses in china, persians and the best knights in eastern europe. They can defenetely destroy the scattered states of the holy roman empire. Europe is just lucky really, that the best commander subotai was unfortunate enough not to finish his winter campaign on the holy roman empire. he knows it and every mongolian knows it the asian folk can beat europe in their own turf. And yes iam mad that whites wont accept they can lose in their own homeland. its just disgusting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.230.82 (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Mongols would have been over-extended in Europe beyond Ukraine. Their military foray into Hungary was "successful" but they wouldn't have been able to maintain a long-term base there. Even the Golden Horde very quickly had to rely on local princes in Russia to keep order. Destroying an army and pacifying/occupying a country are different things.104.169.18.4 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Machiavellian?

"He was an extremely pragmatic person, much like his father, and looked at the end rather than the means" By pragmatic is machiavellian what's meant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.187.172 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Genghis Khan and three of his four sons.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ogadai Khan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p inserting red hair claims of Odegei Khan without historical sources

He uses a historian who speculates/suggests that Odegei Khan may have had red hair but that is all pure speculation because there is no historical record that had ever described Odegei Khan. Hunan201p never provide a historical record confirming Odegei Khan was red haired, no one had ever described him red hair during his lifetime.

Hunan201p uses this source

[1]

Ogedei was confirmed as the new ruler in 1229 and reigned until his death in 1241. We may know what he looked like, thanks to his well-known portrait, (painted about a hundred years after his death), showing him as stocky in the same way as Genghis, red bearded, hazel eyed, and well prepared for Northern interiors with his domed, fur-trimmed winter helmet.

The problem with this. First she said "We may know what he looked like", meaning she doesn't confirm it to be 100% sure. And that's "thanks to his well-known portrait, (painted about a hundred years after his death)", how can you used a portrait painted hundred years after his deaths as evidence? Gemmaso (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The obvious answer to your question is that if an expert can publish it in Rowman and Littlefield, we can also post it on Wikipedia. Why'd you remove Chad Garcia's content? - Hunan201p (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everything must be based on historical facts and CONFIRMED. You do not have any historical confirmation from medieval description or medieval historians and witness that suggest Odegei Khan had red hair. All your sources come from modern speculation. The portrait like your source says is painted hundred years after his death, how can that be considered accurate? It is very manipulative of you to insist he claiming he was red hair using a few historian speculations as facts.

Besides the red hair claims on Khans is a proven error. The source from Andrew Boyle https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245/mode/2up

"Rashid al-Din's text of red hair referred to ruddy skin complexion, and that Genghis Khan was of ruddy complexion like most of his children except for Kublai Khan who was swarthy. He translated the text as “It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan's eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared” " Gemmaso (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everything must be based on historical facts and CONFIRMED ...who told you that? You do not have any historical confirmation from medieval description or medieval historians and witness that suggest Odegei Khan had red hair. All your sources come from modern speculation ...it is perfectly acceptable to use modern scholarship as source. The portrait like your source says is painted hundred years after his death, how can that be considered accurate?...lay off the original research already... Besides the red hair claims on Khans is a proven error. The source from Andrew Boyle ...the only error here is your hallucinatory interpretation of Boyle. That is not the part where Rashid said the Borjigins had red hair. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So in your physical appearance, you edited Odegei Khan like he was CONFIRMED a real historical figure with red hair. Is it mainstream history now? The only thing your doing is misleading people and tricking everyone into thinking your edit is authentic and reliable. If you have a historical medieval description, witness, historian than there be no problem. What your doing is no different to Turkish historian claiming Scythians were Turks instead of Indo-Iranian or Afrocentrist claiming ancient Egyptians and Moors who ruled Europe as black based on paintings and a few modern historian interpretation.Gemmaso (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What you're doing is called original research and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The source clearly says he has a red beard. Don't revert well sourced edits like that. Also explain your removal of Chad Garcia's paper. - Hunan201p (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Why you accusing others of original research when is CLEARLY YOU that's doing all that. What source clearly says had red beard? Do you have Medieval descriptions or witness. Your source comes from Pamela Kyle Crossley a women subject to criticism by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and many Chinese scholarshere

She said: "We may know what he looked like, thanks to his well-known portrait, (painted about a hundred years after his death), " Does this sound someone that is 100% sure of herself and 100% confirmed in historical facts? No. She is subjectively making a guess that could be true or not, but it would be far more accurate if you had medieval descriptions and records to back it up otherwise it just based on her superficial beliefs to rely on a portrait made hundred years after his death.

What Chad Garcia's paper? post the link because I have no idea what your talking about. Gemmaso (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you had no valid reason at all for removing that perfectly sourced addition to the article. As for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, their reputation has been sullied[2][3] as a state-run propaganda arm of the CCP, and I'm not seeing where they criticized her analysis of the Ogedei portrait. If you back and look at your revert, you removed Chad Garcia's paper without explanation. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No I have every valid reason to remove your original research but I'm waiting for someone or anyone that finally intervenes. It doesn't have to be me but some else who read what I read and can deal with you ways. Again, your source is based on the interpretation of a historian who is not 100% sure if the hundred years later made portrait was accurate. Yours are not even a authentic portrait of the time of Odegei Khan, it was made 14th century by some unknown person.

Here. Learn something about Authentic portraits Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures

" Authentic portraits

" Where they exist, authentic portraits, i.e. artistic depictions of a person that purport to provide an individualized, authentic representation of that person's unique looks, based either directly or indirectly on a witness's first-hand experience of their physical appearance, are obviously the best choice for illustrating history and biography articles about that person. Unfortunately, for individuals from most pre-modern cultures, such portraits are unavailable."

A good point they made: "Portrait" as a term should be reserved for images intended to accurately depict a real person.

and this is a good point too "Images which are used to illustrate later opinions about a person should be carefully placed in the discussion about those views, lest anyone think the image is an accurate image of the person. "Gemmaso (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Content is perfectly fine. Verified in WP:RS, clearly identified as opinion of author, etc. Not sure it deserves a seperate section (WP:UNDUE) so I'll move it to the character section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have also removed the duplicated image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I must ask you again to make sure. There is no first-hand historical records on Odegei Khan physical appearance and no historical description of his red hair. The Odegei Khan painting is made hundred years after his death. How can a modern historian interpretation of that be accurate?

This opinion...."According to Pamela Kyle Crossley, a posthumous Yuan dynasty portrait of Ögodei depicts him as having a stocky build, a red beard, and hazel eyes.[29] " The opinion of that author itself can easily influenced facts and perception. A comment like that itself would fool almost any beginner. It would blatantly fool wikipedian beginner into thinking it's based real historical facts because there is nothing suggesting that her opinion is wrong because no one is bothered about this historian that almost no one knows about this. This is basically fooling the world by telling us is a historical confirmed fact he had red beard? So if a random person reads this article, nobody needs to take any responsibility for not telling that the portrait of Odegei Khan is possibly not his true representative image?

The description of red hair the Khans was already proven to be a historical errors based on legends and myths. The source from Andrew Boyle shows their red hair description was referring to their reddish complexion, skin color https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245/mode/2up

Authentic portraits Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures also authentic representation of that person's unique looks, based either directly or indirectly on a witness's first-hand experience of their physical appearance, are obviously the best choice for illustrating history and biography articles about that person"

Are you telling me is also okay to edit that in red hair. Just tell me this, your allowed to post portrait of historical figures and claim they have hair color even if the portrait may not be accurate or the historical medieval records show they never had it. As long as a modern historian thinks they had hair color than it's okay?Gemmaso (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Gemmaso, you appear to be wilfully ignoring the According to Pamela Kyle Crossley part of the quote. This clearly signifies that this is an opinion of a modern historian. The opinion is that a posthumous portrait depicts him with certain features. I can see absolutely no evidence for your accusations of "fooling the world". You would do well to take back your numerous unfounded allegations before preventative measures are taken against you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 Well I will take back what I said. Because other administrators said, historical accuracy is very important. Based on that, it's okay to edit Odegei Khan ha red hair in the wiki page of red hair as historical fact? Portraits are artistic and sometimes unreliable. There is other portrait of him black hair and dark eyes dating back Yuan dynasty https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0NDU4MTIwNTU3MzA3MjQw/the-mongols-kublai-khans-impact-on-china.jpg

I mean I heavily dispute her opinion as a source because she said. [4]

Ogedei was confirmed as the new ruler in 1229 and reigned until his death in 1241. We may know what he looked like, thanks to his well-known portrait, (painted about a hundred years after his death), showing him as stocky in the same way as Genghis, red bearded, hazel eyed, and well prepared for Northern interiors with his domed, fur-trimmed winter helmet.

Now if this content is perfectly fine. Should we now edit Genghis Khan also have red beard and hazel eyes because I don't see any red beard and hazel eyes on Genghis Khan and even odegei Khan other described as light colered, and to me it looks brown.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg/1612px-YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg

Although his real life description and his portrait doesn't show it [5] The only individuals to have recorded Genghis Khan's physical appearance during his lifetime were the Persian chronicler Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani and Chinese diplomat Zhao Hong.[182] Minhaj al-Siraj described Genghis Khan as "a man of tall stature, of vigorous build, robust in body, the hair of his face scanty and turned white, with cats’ eyes, possessed of dedicated energy, discernment, genius, and understanding, awe-striking...".[183] The chronicler had also previously commented on Genghis Khan's height, powerful build, with cat's eyes and lack of grey hair, based on the evidence of eyes witnesses in 1220, which saw Genghis Khan fighting in the Khorasan (modern day northwest Persia).[184][185] According to Paul Ratchnevsky, the Song dynasty envoy Zhao Hong who visited the Mongols in 1221,[186] described Genghis Khan as "of tall and majestic stature, his brow is broad and his beard is long".[184]. Sorry but I was very confused.Gemmaso (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not okay to claim that Ogedei Khan having red hair was historical fact Gemmaso. However, I have significant doubts about your ability to understand what such a claim would look like. The quote you helpfully provided above shows that you need to pay closer attention to what you write: it is clearly specified that the similarity to Genghis is in Ogedei's stockiness, not his beard, eyes, or helmet preparation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 Okay than I will revert my mistakes. On the red hair page is it okay to remove odegei Khan having red hair? Because that page is supposedly for authentic people who have real read hair as part of the 1-2% of the world population. If I am wrong I would restore it back. It's basically the same portrait but the caption says " Ögedei Khan, son of Genghis Khan and second Great Khan of the Mongol Empire, is shown with a light-colored[48] reddish beard and mustache." Although the source only says "A portrait of a man with a light-colored beard and mustache and a turquoise cap."

This sentence " Showing him as stocky in the same way as Genghis', red bearded, hazel eyed " would fool a lot people. Because there also a physical description of Genghis Khan with false attemtps to claim he too was red bearded too but luckily we have historical physical description. Anyway if that 14th century painting made hundred years after is death of Odegei Khan is reliable than I will restore it back on red hair. This is the whole point all this time. Gemmaso (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no experience or knowledge of that page, but why not include someone else if there are disputes? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29I don't know who to ask. Anyway, I want to make a little edit on this current page. I won't remove anything but I want to add just a tiny bit of things. I want to change the current sentence just a little bit.Gemmaso (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)