I don't know why, you seem to be always running into those with extremist views.

I can only speak for myself when I say I don't seek to distort history in favour of either China or any other group of people.

What I do object is to generalise any group based on the actions of the ruling class.
Sure the Mongols massacred many people, that's a fact.
But if these massacres made them barbarians, then I think it is only fair to acknowledge to atrocities commited by the Chinese people against each other and label them as barbarians too.

But in the first place, such generalisation is not the right way to study history.
Furthermore, I don't agree with pot calling kettle black, or in Chinese, 50 steps laugh at 100 steps.
I do not agree that number of victims should be a determining factor in historical judgment.

I will be a defence lawyer for any regime that is demonised more than the historical evidence justifies. That applies equally to the Vietnamese claims that the Ming Chinese were genocidal rapists and mass murderers when they occupied Vietnam for 20 years. I am just as skeptical about these claims.

I do not deny that the Nazis were evil. But if someone claims that the Nazis turned the Jews into sausages to feed people, I will stand up and say there is no evidence for it. Similarly, I will not deny that the Mongols did things that were evil. But I will only recognize those evil things that are supported by the evidence.

I would prefer that you try typing out the same passage that you quoted, in the original English. Then we can see if it has been distorted in translation to Chinese. I am aware that the Cambridge History has been altered before by its Chinese translators, for political reasons.

BTW, the book by John Dardess that I mentioned earlier is "Conquerors and Confucians: Aspects of Political Change in Late Yuan China" ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...5307914-8307954 )

I will say that in my opinion, from having read many Western historians' work on Chinese history, most of them are not at all racist. They are often very objective, non-Eurocentric, and do rigorous research compared to many Chinese historians who prefer to rely purely on the dynastic histories and repeat traditional sinocentric views. When studying the Mongols, they have tried to be fair and make a deep and balanced analysis of Mongol culture. If they seem too sympathetic to the Mongols sometimes, the reader can easily balance it out by reading nationalistic Chinese works on the Mongols.

I happened to know some mainland Chinese historian always disqualify those who have different historical views opinion with dangours political crimes, such as “counter-revolutionarists” in order to keep their own opinion as correct one without challenge..

It is first time I suspect some historian in Singapore might use the same tricks.

At least you sometimes distort what I said. When I said the the Han-Chinese promote civilization which is social order without violence , I have an expression that you think I promot forcing indigenous people from the mountain habitats to become labourers as an act of 文明社会?. Is that true?

If you can not distinguish such big difference between my statement and your comprehension, how can you be sure that you can distinguish between real history and distorted one? How can you be sure it is me but not you who is distorting the history?

You did not distort my view? look at this example.

I guess you imply I did generalization which blame the entire people including their slaves of nomadic group based on the actions of the ruling class?

If it is true, can you give any evidence when and where I did this? I feel my opinion is pretty much distorted by you because I only compare the crimes between regimes while you insist on I generalize all common people. Isn’t it a typical distortion on my view?

It is also fact that nomadic groups plunder Han-chinese almost every year that was recorded in most of the Chinese dynasty. But it seldom happened with the other way around in Chinese history. The similar things in European history, that the only Turks plunder Byzantium-Greece but never the other way around. This is really what happened in the history. Nazi killed Jews and it is not the other way around. The truth in the history has nothing to do with your political faith that regimes from all the ethnic group are equally nice or evil so that they have same contributions to development in human society. Further more, when I suggest different types the regime are not same evil, you and some people here strongly oppose it, which fact indicated all the types regimes are same. So according your political faith, Ming regime killed the same amount of tartar men and rape same number of tartar women into Han-Chinese area as the tartar kill Han-Chinese and kidnapped Chinese women. However, this is simply inconsistent with the historic records. According to my own reading from Ming’s documented there are more one hundred times of plunder from tartar or waci (瓦刺) recorded， each time they killed Chinese man and kidnapped Chinese women to the steep with a number from 10 thousands to 100 thousands. And they always threaten to rub Han-area, unless the Ming-regime provided silk tea, and Tea, china to them. The Han-Chinese society produce large amount of this kind things and exported to many countries including many European countries. Today, in messume of many Europe countries, people can still find exported china (青花瓷器) made in Ming dynestry. Have you ever find any thing exported from tartar or Waci? Are they plunder each other with same amount? Do you ever read these historical document before you state your political faith? What could Han-chinese people plunder from tartar in your opinion?

The social value, especially values on human life are completely opposite in Han-Chinese civilization and Nomadic society. In traditional Han-value system, human life are always important, so the major stream of the major stream in the society help the poor and weak people. As evidence, there were social security system imposed even as early as in Han-Dynasty. The government impose taxes in the years with good harvest, and when natural disaster happened, such as lack of water or flood, the government use the money to help those who are lack of food to prevent them from death by hungers. Did you ever read the history the book 《续资治通鉴》in which, such an example is recorded. In the southern Song regime, the government are lack of money because of heavy pressure for national defense from invasion of northern nomadic groups. The minister educated the empire how human life are important and strongly opposed the plan from a Song Emperor that stop spending the money to help those in flood disaster in certain places. Isn’t it true that the similar secruety system in modern western countries developed in similar minor?

As a historian, have you ever seem any single social securety system existed in Nomadic group? What I read from “secrete history of Mongolian” is quite opposite. Gengishkhan’s family were simply abonded as weak after his father’s death. Similar history happened to one of Gengiskhan’s ancestors Bordoncar. After his mother’s death, his elder brothers abondomed him as weak. He was helped by a group of people with food, however, he suggested his brothers to kidnapped this group of people as slaves, and he win back the respect of his brothers in this way. If you ever bother to read this book written by the nomadic nobles, it is not so difficult to find that they never feel shameful but always feel proud for behavior, like killing man of other tribes, kidnapping other peoples wife and daughters and raping them. Such behavior are considered in all the civilized coutries in Asia and Europe. However, if you ever bother to read a book with title “compendium history” (in China this book is called《史集》and translated from Russian) written by a Persian historian in the government of Mongol Emperor, he record the education from Gengiskhan to his children, in which he claim such behaviors, of killing the men, see the suffering of the people are the most pleasant fun for a man. When I read Chinese record, I found Han-Chinese record exactly same behavior as recorded in the book written by the Mongols but as view of victims.. In most of Chinese dynasty, Whenever the Han-Chinese society lost social order and lost the army who defend the civilians, the nomadic group came into China and plunder them, killing the men and kidnapped the women. One of such an example is Cai WenJi （蔡文姬）who was kidnapped by the “southern hun regime”. She happened to be the women personally belonged to the “left king with good skills” of the southern hun (左贤王) and the ministor has to pay to buy her back in order to recover some lost literature. In the same time, the Chinese poem describe such disaster with sentence like “men’s head was hanged before the horse, women was bounded after the horse” (马前悬男头， 马后载妇女) . Didn’t you recognize something similar in that picture from Persia after about one thousand year?





The second picture was showing the mongol social send the the mother and wife of Muhamud (the king of 花剌子摩，I don't know the english name) to their khan. If any one do not know what would happen next, he should be reminded with what happened to the queen of tangut (西夏). The latter suicide herself when similar things happened to her because she consider it is too much humiation that she can not tolerate. If these two women survived at this moment, they would not survive longer anyway, because the mongol regime have tradition to bury them alive together after the Khan is dead. In order to blame Han-Chinese also experience barbarians period, I would like to mention such a tradition of buriing living women into coffin together the the dead kings also existed in Han-chinese society, but the customs had been stopped in Han-Dynasty. However, resumed in Ming dynasty. This fact is used today in China by those historians who promote Mongol-Manchun regrims , as evidence to blame how Han-Chinese civilization was dark or evil and how Zhu YuanZhang or Ming dynasty was guilty, while they "forget" to metion it Gengiskhan have to same costums who burry (to my memory about 50 but I am too lazy to check) women slaves in his fedul funeral (most likely including the two women in the picture) . However, in my opinion, such a recover of barbarian costums after 1000 years is simply a consequence of eduction from the nomadic Mongol empire, rather than some barbaric elements of traidictional chinese culture as those historian in pro-mongol club suggested.


Apparently ethic massacra cleaning is a unique tradition in Nomadic society, that last more than one thousand years. Both record from civilized country and from Nomadic group record exactly same thing. As a continuation of the tradiction, turks killed more than 1 million Ameians people inside their territory in the beginning of last century, which is pretty much blamed in western countries now a days. In contrast, when the outer Mongolian claim independence, more than 100 hundred Han-or-Manchu--Chinese population among 500 thousand Mongolian population were entirely killed or expelled out from their territory, and no one bother to mention it today. In this history of conflict between Han-Chinese and nomadic groups, it is at least predominantly that Han-Chinese were always victims while the nomadic regime were the murder. The author of “the wolf totem”, even I consider him as a racist, never deny this fact in history, but just with explanation that this is because the nomadic group have a super blood of wolf while Han-Chinese cowards have coarseness blood of sheeps. In contrast, my explaination is that the nomadic group has a value view that do not think human life of other group are precious while civilized groups are different.

Do not distort me this time, I have never claim every one in the nomadic society are evil. What I exactly stated is that, the nomadic regime in that society was built based a value similar to mafia society and never put human life as valuable. So this type of regime have tradition to engaged in ethic massaccra while the authority from citynized do not have the same tradition.

However, some people who claim themselves professional historian, deny this is the fact in history. More interestingly, they did not recognize the author of wolf totem as extreamist racists, but rank me in that sort. Well, as I understand, if historians what to win the respect from general public, they should consider what really happen in history more important than their political faith. So if anyone here suggest I am completely wrong or simply lying, I would like to present source or document that I have read, and I think my opponents should do the same, instead of only blame me as extremists like political enemies.


This is your political faith. If a professional historian want to win the respect from general public, he should only concern with what really happen in history by quoteing the original document that support their idea, instead of presenting their political faith with political slogan such as all the human are equal. In fact I never oppose this slogan, but just in addition, various regime are not the same. For example, Nazi regime are not same present regime in western countries. So is the case between nomadic society and civilized (more exactly, I meant citynized) society..

May I also remind you that it is you not me who generalize the common people with their authority. So when I blame the murders or the regimes, you always assume that I blame all the entire group. This is simply under the assumption that the murders are from the complete group but not the individuals. If one want to protect the common people, including the kidnapped slaves from Han-Chinese society.

If you don’t take double standard, when I blame the nazi regime as evil regime, you should certainly blame me for demonizing all the Germans. If any one from Singapore blame the Militarist Japan regime in WWII, he is certainly generalizing the war criminal for the whole Japaness population?

If you take special standard only to the victims of Han-Chinese people but not to the victims of Nazi or Militarist Japaneess, Isn’t it fair to call it double standard. And may I remind you that double stand imposed to different ethic group on earth is just another name of race discrimination? Who are the real extremist? You or me? Who are not interested in discussing real history? You or me?



If you think Byzantium is a same type of regime as Turk-Ottoman’s and the two regimes engaged the same amount of ethic massacra, I happened to have argument/documents that might be against your idea. I hope you do not label me as a “Byzantium Chauvinist” this time. Also I think, your idea would be more convincing if you present the argument that support your idea in further discussion, in stead of just claiming what you think as an authority.

False.
Actually, I was asking you to answer whether you think forcing mountain people to become labourers, as what Sun Quan did, was consistent with how one defines 文明社会.


赵丰年, pay attention and read what I am typing carefully.

The notion of political faith is something that *you* have, but please do not assume others are motivated in their outlooks by the *concept* of political faiths.

I never said that the Ming killed or raped the same number of tartars as compared to the Han-Chinese being killed or raped by the tartars.

The number is the not significant issue here.

What is significant to me is one group of human beings killed and raped another group of human beings.
Neither the ethnicities of the victims, nor criminals, matter.

I do not agree with labelling any groups on the actions of individuals, whether they be the ruling class or otherwise, unless it can be clearly shown how the group collectively endorsed the particular course of action.

Even *if* the Ming soldiers had raped and killed only 100 Tartars in comparison to 100,000 Ming citizens raped and killed by the Tartars, and if just based on these alone, I am to judge the Tartars as a group (not as individuals) as barbaric, then I too would judge the Ming as a group (not as individuals) as barbaric.

For Ming to be acquitted from the guilt, the Ming rulers would have to demonstrate by
(1) Showing they had taken steps to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place,
And if the crimes took place despite the precautions,
(2) Investigate and punish the culprits, AND
(3) Make restitutions to the victims.

And for the Tartars to be acquitted from the guilt, the same standards apply.

As far as I know, historically, though there were several instances of Ming military leaders restraining their men, the Ming did not have a thorough process to prevent the crimes, punish all the criminals and make restitutions to all the victims.

And as far as I know, neither did the Tartars.

Therefore, if the Tartars were to be judged, so must the Ming.
The number of victims is not an issue.

Even if there is only one victim, the victim's suffering is till a suffering that must not be overlooked,
regardless of whether the victim is a Ming or a Tartar,
regardless of whether the criminal is a Ming of a Tartar.

Beneath the labels of Ming or Tartar, everyone is a human being.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...topic=9793&hl=# shows the exact phrase I used.


Notice : I am asking you a question, not putting words into your mouth.
If you do not think it is an act of 文明社会, then just answer "No."
If you do think it is an act of 文明社会, then just answer "Yes."

I may have more questions about it, but I *do not presume* that your answer is a "Yes", and I *do not presume* your answer is a "No".

It is *up to you* to speak for yourself.

Until now, you have not answered "Yes", you have not answered "No".
You have not given your answer to this very specific question.
Why not?

so far I agree with you, in fact, I got all my idea from some western historians. So no matter I am objective/subjective or not, I am not the right guy to say most the western historians are racist. That is simply to blame myself accept idea from racists.



However, I feel you quatation are not blanced, you only quote the western historian that promote the Mongol-Yuan but never metion those who are strongly against it.

I will explain more in my next post.

the answer is NO!

So your answer to my question is No. Fine.

In what way is that me distorting you?

To follow up then, why not?

If you do not try to distort my statement and demonize me in purpose, I would suggest you to read my post more carefully before you conclude that all my writing based on nothing but hearsay.
1) I said the whole Jie as a ethic group, not Shi Le as a person were kidnaped as slaves into China. While I have to admit I did not really recheck what I read, but to my memory or according to some indirect sources that I think I have read, the Jie group was part of slave-solder of Hun, who was brought to China to attack Han area. Is that wrong? If yes, how Shi Le, as a origin from a group that speak Indo-european laugue came from far away into china in the first place? I really do not have the impression that they brought new technology as peaceful immigrants (as many other ethic groups who peacefully integrated with Han that happened so many times in Chinese history), then killed by Han-population. When he was captured by Sima Teng, who was he figting for? Did Sima Teng invaded Hun's territory and capture him?

2) It is true that I am not a professional historian, and I do not know how to express those terms of language such as Perian-related in English, so I put Persian related language instead. If you think this should be the reason I am disqualified to discuss with you ban my speech in CHF, I would perfectly agree to you. However, this does not mean I only write based on rumors. I did read both indirect sources and sometimes original document. If you use this kind of technical mistakes that those who professions are not history can not avoid, it only means you are afraid of discussing about real history and find reasons to disquolaify other people's speech. By the way, I can not find the thread that I just posted. Is that deleted by you? Is that a signal to expelled me as an unwelcome extreamst who are not qualified to discuss history in CHF? I do not object at all if I am expelled, but I would appreciate to be informed in advance, so that I won’t spend too much time to write anything before I found them simply deleted.

Again, here you try to crticised something that I never said.

Did I ever say Shi Le was a bandits? I thought I just said he was praised by Han-Chinese historians for protecting some innocent people. Instead, I think the whole Jie group came into China as invaders because most of their income came from rubbing from Han-Chinese, I never meant Shi Le did this as a person. In the same time, I think the whole Han-group in area engaged in ethnic clean but not Ran Min as a person.

If I distort you statement in the same way as I felt you did it to me, then I would say you claim whole Jie group came into China either peacefully or captured as slaves into China by Han-Chinese. In fact you did give this impression and if you did, I happen to read some original document as evidence against you. However, distorting opponent's statement would finally turn the discussion into wasting time for both of us? Don't you think so?


Point 6 is exactly the reason why I think the ethnic cleaning is a result of education from the five Hun tribes, rather than tradictional Chinese culture. Does any of my previous statement contradict to the above points you made?

I did read this version of story. I did not mention the detail you presented because I was not sure my memory works so well that I rememeber all the detail correctly. However, I did not understand why it is different from my previous version?



Here is the real controdiction between us, however, you seems to distort my statement again. What I exactly meant is that the whole Jie group position themselve as upper class, and the law protect them for rubbing han-chinese. So that the Han-Chinese group felt very disparate because they do not expect they survive very long, This is the motivation of the ethnic massacre. Do you, as a professional expert of that period history, deny this idea? If you do, I happened to read some original document against your idea and I promise to find it after some hard searching.

In a peaceful society of China, such a call of massacring from Ran Min would never work. Ran Min could only get into power by using the desperation distributed in the Han-Chinese community. So the ethnic massarca was really motivated by the large amount of han-Chinese who felt they must the kill the enemy before the Jie killed themselves. This is exactly the point I made, i.e. the han-group who engaged in ethnic cleaning come from education of the forgein Huns, instead from traditional Han-Chinese culture. I know Ran Min serve in Jie army for many years, and this is the reason I think he is most educated person from Huns and this certainly helped him to be the organizer of that cruel ethic massacre. Why do you think you have present some fact that are against my idea?

If you understand my statement that it was the large amount people from Han-group together engaged in that ethnic cleaning, but not Ran Min as one person, then do you think most of murders who actually execute the order from Ran Min think they do it for self-defense, or just like the Mongol empire army who went to Hungary and kill the people there? Are all the professional historians do not see the difference between invasion and self-defence or the standard is just designed for Han-Chinese?



Do you mean, I should be responsible to all these rumors? Or Should I responsible only to the fifth rumor that I spread out myself?

It is so good that, finally, the debate turns into some historic period, which I spend a lot of timeto read the original document. so that we can have real discussion to find out whether I am lying or not. Usually I do not remember how to recover quickly where I read before, but since this rumor is so famous, so it happened to be the one of the very few part that I remember how to find the original document very quickly. The following paragraph is quoted from “history of Yuan dynasty”《元史》, 本纪第三十九 顺帝二

是岁，诏赐孝子靳昺碑。伯颜请杀张、王、刘、李、赵
五姓汉人，帝不从。征西域僧伽剌麻至京师，号灌顶国师，赐玉印。

With my bad translation:

In the same year,. …(some text ignored)….Bayan requested the permission to kill all the Han-Chinese with five family name Zhang, Wang, Liu, Li and Zhao. The emperor (顺帝) did not give the permission. ….(some text ingored)

Apparently, the original document support the 5th rumors that spread out by “evil Han-Chauvinists” or extremist like myself.

According to my comprehension to the tradition of Chinese way to record history, this part of records from the book <元史> should be copied and pasted from the original internal palace record inside the Yuan government by the historians in early Ming dynasty. Of course, as someone whose profession is not related to history at all, I am certainly not able to exclude the possibility that this rumor was made up by some “Han-Chauvinists” historian in Ming dynasty. However, I have read quite some original records about how the Mongols did similar things in Persia, Arabic and Europe, from sources which reliability all the experts studying history Mongol empire never denied,. I would be very surprised to find out that, the Mongol regime in China treated Han-Chinese very well as exception from other ethnic people in the world, but the evil “Han-Chauvinsists” historians in Ming dynasty still make up that rumor to demonizing them. I guess it should be understandable that denying the authority of the book 《元史》need some solid evidence from other original documents which have more authority..

Now, may I ask, why Mr. John Dardess, the very well-known historian with expertise in Yuan dynasty think this record was a just rumor made up by “the Han population” for demonizing the Mongol government? Why do you, Mr. Yun, think his statement is more authority over the book 《元史》？


About the other four rumor, I have never helped to spread out, in fact, I have even never heard most of them and I would be reluctant to be responsible to them at least at this moment. However, I indeed would like to be responsible to what any rumor I spread out myself. For example, I stated 90% population, at least 30 million people, in Northern Han-Chinese-area (华北地区)， was killed and 90% population in Sichuan(四川) province was killed by the Mongol army. This is not a study from myself, but I read the paper and know how the author get the conclusion and I would like to present the source whenever requested.

Again, here I “claim” that I would like to be responsible to the “rumor”, there are written laws in Yuan Dynasty as one of the most obvious racist discrimination written laws in human history. I.e. If a Mongol killed a Han for no reason, the maximum penalty was to compensate an animal to the victim’s family, while Han killed a Mongol for any reason, he would be sentence to death. Also there are written law that it was considered crime at all that Mongol slave master rape the wife of their slaves. I read it directly from the book 《元史》, but not just write based on hearsay as Yun suggested. If any one who suspect I am lying, I would like to present the original source and text at any time under requested.

Now I have a question to Mr. Yun, do you think the above written law a rumor or real If you think it is just a rumor, why do not you question the rumor spread out by myself, but rather question some rumors, which I have no idea where they came from, Is this in order to disqualify all the “Han-popluation”, “Han Nationalists” or “Han Chauvinist” in history discussion?

If you think the laws presented really exist in Yuan, isn’t it enough to prove the Mongol empire imposed one of the most racist discrimination in the world? Isn’t it enough to the “Han-population” can not tolerate such policies and decide to overthrow their ruling with reasons other than communists-like “radical extremist revolutionary thought”, as suggested by the authors of “Cambridge history of China”. Isn’t it enough for the “Han-population” to decide rebelling actions without feeling necessary to make any other rumors to increase the “radical extremists” emotion?

With this written law, why do you, or more exactly, why does the well known expert Mr. John Dardess think the “Han-population” was doing nothing else but making up rumors for demonizing the Yuan government? It would be surprising to me if this professional historian distinguished as well-known expert of Yuan dynasty never read the written law in the book《元史》in China. When he blame the “rumor” from “Han-population” which turns out originally come from 《元史》, are you sure he is so objective without any “anti-han-emotion”? Does this experts tells only true, nothing but truth?

Now let me to help to distributed some rumors from Wikepedia, about the estimation how many people that Mongol army has killed
Estimated fatalities from the Mongol campaigns are:
· 1200, Northern China — unknown
· 1215, Yanjing China (present-day Beijing) — unknown
· 1221, Nishapur, Persia — ~1.7 million killed in assault
· 1221, Merv, Persia — ~1.4 million killed in assault
· 1221, Meru Chahjan, Persia — ~1.3 million killed in assault
· 1221, Rayy, Persia — ~1.6 million killed in assault
· 1236, Bilär, Bulgar cities, Volga Bulgaria — 150,000 or more, nearly half of population
· 1237-1240, Kievan Rus' — half of population
· 1241, Battle of Legnica — defeat of a combined Polish-German force in Lower Silesia (Poland)
· 1241, Batu Khan defeats Bela IV of Hungary at the Battle of Muhi ~ 500,000 people
· 1242 the Mongols turn back to attend to the election of a new Grand Khan.
· 1258, Baghdad — ~800,000 people. Results in destruction of Abbasid dynasty
But I have to claim I never check if all these number are correct not with two exceptions, 1) 800,000 victims in Bagdad that is metioned in many booked I have read, 2) the number for 1.4 million murdered in Merv, come from “Gengiskhan, the history of the world conqueror” written by a Persian historian (I forgot his name). I read the whole book but happened to translate only the parts related to Merv massacre into Chinese, so how they get the number. It is exactly same as “The ten days Yanzhou”(扬州十日)， that is the surivived people were organized to burn or bury the dead body as soon as possible in order to prevent bacterial disease from the dead body that killed them later . They get the statistics when they processs the dead body. By the way, I happened to have the english version of this book at hand and would like to post at least some part of the book here as evidence for my argument if I am allowed to do so.

There are also this kind of records in Chinese document, one of them I quoted above about Chendu 成都 massacra. However, non-of those Chinese document are mentioned by those objective pro-Mongol experts, as other other expert of Mongol empire mentioned in the history of other countries such as Persia, Arab or European countries. Isn’t it reasonable to assume the experts who study Yuan adopt a different standard? Or simply there is better explaination other than this?

It is not first time that I see those “professional historians”, (whom I myself only regarded as fans or defense lawyers of Mongol empire”, disqualifying the evidence against them. In China, historian disqualifying records from Islamic historians by claiming that it was just “fastidium cursing from counter-revolutionary Islamic ruling class”. They also disqualifying they records from Russians by saying that it was just made up stories from ”Russian Chauvinism”. I happened to read some comments from a Chinese-original American historian Mr. Huang (黄仁宇), who implied that western historians demonizing Mongol Empire because the westerm chauvinist never want to glorify hero from yellow people. Believe me or not, concerning the history in that period, Mr. Huang made much more technical errors than I did. However, his comments clearly made the points, there are other western experts of Mongol Empire history, who took very different view from the distinguished expert, Prof. John Dardess. In fact, I myself got the whole idea from these western historians of the other type. Although professional historian often blame others discuss history with political motivations, in fact, they did the same but took double standard to themselves.

Disqualification of opponent’s as witness is a typical tactic used defense lawyer. Here I was frequently disqualified because of both (I am sure there are) some technical errors I made myself, but also some words not from my mouth. For example, when I was saying human-life of Han-Chinese are precious when I felt Han-Chinese are severely discriminated, there are always someone in CHF suggest that I claim human life any non-Han-Chinese are not precious, so that I should be disqualified as “Heil Sieg” racist for discussing history. This is something never come out from my mouth, and I can’t help to suspect that they do not want to discuss the real problem, instead just to disqualifying different view. For the same reason, isn’t it reasonable that I suspect some professional historian move like professional defense lawyer for Mongol Empire rather than historian?

In fact, no one really needs to try that hard to disqualify myself. I would like to confess that. I never consider myself as a qualified person to study history. And to be honest, I always admit that I study the related history because I feel Han-Chinese are severely discriminated. There are written law in China that treated Han and other ethnic group unequally so that even minority can kill a Han-Chinese, he could be perfectly all right without any punishment. The person who make this law, the Mongolian-Chinese vice-president of China, Mr. Ulanf (乌兰夫) claim that this unequal law must be implemented because China can not be existed as an unified country without the important contribution Mongol-Machun ruling. His view was supported by Chinese professional historian, however contradicted from what I read from some sources written by western historians. It is reason that I spend so much time to investigate myself. So many people blame my discussion on history have (evil) political purpose. If this can not called political, I would never try to hide or deny it. However, I am honest to what I read myself, and never try to make up anything. If my statement is not enough to be a qualified person, then ban me as you wish.

And I have to admit, most of the article I wrote on internet are quickly written according to my memory from what I read. When I was writing, I seldom double-check the what I read previously in order to prevent error in case of my memory is wrong. However, there is one article, which I wrote very seriously. That is describing how the Chinese historian made up false information to mislead general public about the history of Yuan-Mongol empire. I quoted all the original sources and give the clue how to find the original reference, in order to prove my points. As someone never trained in history study, I have to spend about one year to re-collect all the documents that I read before. In fact, I found this article was forwarded into by Somechineseperson and the link is here.

I would appreciate critical comments for that article more than any other stuff that I have written. I also would be surprised if it finally turn out most of the points in that article rely on hearsays as Yun may have suggested.

I tried to send this article to Chinese Yuan-experts as many as I can reach. Anyone in CHF must be able to guess what the reaction I received. They blame me as an extremist with racists agenda, but never provide any evidence to prove why the points that article is wrong. Isn’t it similar to what happened here? In the only article that I provide all the original sources, I did not find any real critics to prove what points was wrong or which original document are against my opinion, but only blame I am a radical extremists with motivation that might be evil so that I should be disqualified. There are so many important points such as, why the professional historians never bother to mention number of victims, why do they attribute the industrial grow to the Mongol conquest but not the slaves from civilization area, Why do they never bother to mention the rare discrimination law but praise the Yuan government as best ruler in Chinese history. Does this means those “professional historians” deliberately distort history and impose a view of racists discrimination against Han-Chinese? However, I never get any response for these questions. I have impression that the expert in this forum avoid to comment these questions but wait until they find my ignorgant errors in some my comments which I am not so familiar with. They seized the error to prove I am not a qualified person who discuss history so that all my writing are based on hearsay. Yet many of these errors are not really from myself. An typical example is from Yun, who give some rumor that not from my mouth to prove “han-popluation” or Han-Nationalists-Chavunists make up stories to demonizing Mongol Empire, while avoid to respond my points why some western historian regard the Mongols as greatest leader in Chinese history while they forgot to mention written law with race discrmination and how many population were eliminated under their ruling? Is my impression correct? Should I tell the general public this way?

With my blaming to the opponents as racists and others blame me as extremists, such a discussion with avoidance to discuss the real problem, I guess, would finally turn out into nothing else but quarrelling between political enemies. If the discussion is only to prove that I am not qualified as history with professional people, than there are much more than enough evidence to make the point. However, it is far from enough, or more exactly, there is nothing to erase my suspect that some professional historian distorted the history and discriminate Han-Chinese. I have so many points without any overthrown. Of course, suspect from a small number of Han-nationalists and myself, if we are evil in anyway, should not be worried so much. There are so many stupid guy on internet who ask stupid questions anyway and they can not make victims more than the 18 bandits made. However, in the case you really worry the general public of Han-Chinese has same suspect, I suggest this kind of question should be responded or criticized in a way from professional historian, but not from professional lawyer or politician. According to what I found from reaction of my articles from readers, even almost no one really think I am a qualified as a historian, however, most of the Han-Chinese reader do somehow share my worrying. It is simply like when a patient suspect the doctor fool him, even other patients know he is not qualified as a doctor, they may quite agree the worrying, unless doctor really respond their worrying, but not only disqualified the guy who question them. So, in this imperial court, it is your honor and power to give verdict, with perhaps bans, deletions, or disqualifying everything I said based on errors of some parts of what I said. However, there might be another court in general public who verdict if you professional historians are fooling them or not. I believe those questions have to be responded soon or later. So if you are a professional historians that only concerning what really happened in the past, I suggest you respond the those real problem, in stead of distorting the view or search every errors from your opponents, in order to disqualify him.

I wonder if it is a conersation between deafs people. I know perfectly you do not think the number of victim is worth to discuss. However, when I present the reason above why it should be stressed, you never response but repeatly say the number of victims is not important.

So, if you do not assume yourself as a god who decide what is important and what is not in studying, namely, if you do not consider it as your undiscussable faith that number of killed people are worthless in history studies, could you give me a clear reason why you think that is not important? You might understand I do not regard you as my god to whom I should obey any of your rules unconditionally. As I repeatly present the reason why it was important everywhere in my discussion, would you also kindly igve some comments on why the number of victims is not worth to consider. For example, could you give some explain why do you think the following paragrah, that was written to you before, was unconsiderable as a reasonable argument?



I wonder why some people in the international historic research world, as well as CHF always sound like to a defense lawyer of Mongol Empire. They always try to hide the differences between the most terrible calamity with something much much smaller. For anyone who has reasonable ability to think, it is so obvious that history is influenced by number of victims and degree destruction. If you kill 0.1% Chinese population, the country can recover after 1 generation, if you kill half Chinese population as Mongol Empire did, the country simply decline and many techonoly that have been accumulated for hundred years would be brought away with those killed victims. If you kill the whole population, the country simply disappeared forever. It is well documented that the Mongol empire killed more than 90% people in “northern Han-China”(华北)(at least 30 millions people) and SiChuan province(at least 10 millions people). Some "professional historian", I hope not included in CHF, pretend they do not know these differences. In my opinion, they should be called professional lawyer or politician rather than historian. Are their any more terrible disaster even happen in Human history? Is it demonizing to call this kind of regime more evil than Nazi?


If you imply I did that, no, I never. You should present in which part of my talk you get the idea I label groups on the actions of individuals. In opposite, I think you are doing this kind of thing and I have already present the reason which you did not respond.



The world is very luck because you are not the invited as a judge in any international court. Japaness kill more than 100,000 chinese citizens in WWII, and I am sure Chinese killed more than 100 japness soldiers. If you do not take double standard, their crimes are exactly same, not matter the killing are from victims to self-defence to sodilers, or simply as invaders. Same for the Nazi case. If you do not take double standard, according to your political faith, if any Jews killed 1 German nazi for self-defence, and German Nazi kill 1 millioin innocent Jews, you are to judge the nazias a group (not as individuals) barbaric, and you too dudge the Jews community as as a group (not as individuals) as barbaric. Is this a correct understand from your rule that number is not the issue?

You sound like a law maker or a god that simply making rules without allowing anyone else challenging your rules. However, if you could understand, your rules, that number of victims is not the issure, does not seems to be as authority as you believed. As far as I read, other professional historians alywas try to make stattiscies about victims in order the estimate the demage in the catalysm of history, of course, with some exceptions when they want to take double standards. They estimate the number of victims Nazi made in order evaluate the demage, they also estimate the number of death japanness made for the same reason. So if you do not consider your self only one who is qualfied in making rules in history study, you may consider to present reasonable agrument for why you are making those rules, otherwise your rules would not be so easily accepted as authority, especially (but not only) from my side. Don't you get the understand what I am saying?

This is another rule that you present, which turn out to be exactly the evidence that you are moving as a defense lawer of the Nomadic regimes, rather than a objective historian. If you are defense lawer of Nazi, you can also present the same rule to judge that Nazi Germany are not more evil to Franc, America, Briton or any other non-nazi coutries. Did all those countries perfectly satisfied your deamanding? It is one thing to make rule, but it is another thing to make authority of the rules so that people can accept it. If you do not want to impose your rules by violence, usually you need to present your arguments to prove those rules are reasonable, however, I failed to find you give any argument anywhere.

And for the Tartars to be acquitted from the guilt, the same standards apply.


It is very interesting that you put killing tatar invadering soldiers as same crime as tatar killing Ming's innocent civilians. No, more exactly, in fact, you never use the word innocent and I have the impression that you do not have this word in your dictionary, at least when you discuss history related with Han-Chinese. If you apply the same rule to other historic event, such as Nazi or Japan in the WWII, both of their regime would be very happy to invite you as the judge. May I safely say, when most historians in the world consider Nazi are more evil than the other countries such as Birtain, American, you value promoting some rules that claim there are no differences at all. I am not sure you are helping Nazi in that way, but I sure you are helping the nomadic society who made more victims than Nazi.




I suggest you to publicly announce your rule to the Singapore society concerning the conflicts between Singapore and Japan in the WWII. You tell them, if one person in Singapore who are killed, regardless the victim is a invading solder or civilian, the victim's suffering is till a suffering that must not be overlooked,
regardless of whether the victim is a Japaness or a Singaporian,
regardless of whether the criminal is a Japaness of a singaporian.
Beneath the labels of Japaness or Singapornian, everyone is a human being

What a beautiful statement? I almost completely agree to you, except the point that you forgot to mention the difference between murder and self-defense and classify every killing with a single rank, murder.

If you publish your rules and idea in the newspaper in Singapore, please don’t forget to inform me so that I can watch the reaction from the victims. If you do not intend to do this, than, you might understand I suspect you take double standard to Han-Chinese, namely a sort of race discrimination.

Frankly, I feel very luck that you are not assigned to be responsible for making budget for the police department in the area where I am living, because you never consider the number of victims made by the criminals as a significant issue. I guess all the rest in my community would have similar happy feeling as I do, if they knew the whole story.

And, by the way, if the discussion turn out to be conversation between deaf peoples, I think probably we will not expect response from each other in future, and leave this debate to public to judge who is more reasonable.

Zhao Fengnian, I really think you are being more defensive and emotional than you need to be. I thought your attitude towards me had changed, but now again I see in you much anger and pride, and little love and humility. I did not support banning your words from CHF, and I do not support it now either, no matter how sarcastic and critical you want to be towards me. I deleted your other new thread because its contents are exactly a repeat of what you posted on this thread. That would confuse people, and they would not know which thread to reply to. It is a purely administrative decision to avoid repetition and duplication. It does not mean I am censoring you.



The Jie were probably incorporated into the Xiongnu armies when Kangju (Sogdiana) was a vassal state of the Xiongnu during the Han dynasty. Shi Le is described as a member of the Jie nobility, so that means he was not a slave-soldier and neither were his ancestors. They were relatively high-ranking members of the Xiongnu military system. They probably settled down in Bingzhou (Shanxi) when the Southern Xiongnu Chanyu (King) was overthrown by two rebellious tribes and brought his followers to live in Shanxi in the late 180s. I have posted about this Xiongnu migration into Shanxi elsewhere in the forum. After the settlement in Shanxi, the Xiongnu remained peaceful and made very little trouble, partly because Cao Cao split them into five groups and put a Han official in charge of each of these five groups, to keep them under control.

When Shi Le was captured by Sima Teng, he was not fighting for anyone. He was a civilian herder minding his own business, as far as we know from the records. But because there was a famine in Bingzhou, the governor Sima Teng ordered his troops to capture Jie and Xiongnu and sell them to raise funds to buy food. That is how Shi Le became a slave, and how after he was released he became a bandit and then a rebel. The Jie in Bingzhou were originally living peacefully and not raiding or robbing. But because of the famine and the Xiongnu rebellion, many of them like Shi Le started joining the rebel army.

I certainly don't think non-professional historians are disqualified from discussing history on CHF. If I did, I would not respond to so many posts by beginners in history much less knowledgeable than yourself. However, I do feel a need to correct your statements when they are historically inaccurate, because they may mislead other members. Please do not take it personally and think that I am grasping at trivial points to avoid talking about real history with you.

I gather that your argument about real history is this when it comes to Ran Min: Ran Min's father learned the cruel ways of the Jie from being adopted by Shi Hu. Ran Min then learned these ways from his father. So he used the same cruel ways to massacre the Jie when he needed to for political reasons. But the Han population had different motivations; they wanted to kill the Jie because the Jie were committing atrocities against them and oppressing them. That is why they responded to Ran Min's "Kill the Hu" call. Ran Min was cruel and ambitious, but the Han people were desperate. Ran Min made use of their desperation and anger to achieve his political aims. Is that right?

Can you cite written laws from other dynasties ruled by the Han to show that they were much more humane regarding the treatment of slaves by their masters? I have read somewhere recently that under earlier Han regimes as well, masters got off with only a light penalty for killing their slaves, while slaves would definitely be executed for killing their master. I can try and look for this source if you want me to.

赵丰年, Please re-read the post I wrote.

I specifically stated that the crime is *raping and murdering*, not killing in self-defence.
Can I say that you are putting words into my mouth or distorting what I said? Yes or No?

A Chinese who defended his home and killed an invading Japanese soldier, or British soldier, or French soldier, *is not a criminal*.

But a Chinese who in the course of expansion of his state, invaded the habitat of either a non-Chinese (like the Korean, or a Vietnamese), raped and killed members of the native people, *is a criminal*.

And no, I do not expect you to treat me as a god that you must obey. You are entitled to your own standards. Other people are entitled to theirs.


I have no issues with historians using statistics about the victims to evaluate the damage done.
That is not what I disagree about when I say the numbers is not the determining factor.

It seems that you still do not understand that I am not talking about assessing which group of people caused more damage.
That's not my point at all.

Neither am I trying to defend so-called historians who try to brush aside the issue of numbers of victims.
That's not my point either.


My statement about Ming soldiers killing Tartars is in the context of Ming soldiers going into the lands of the Tartars to do the raping, killing and what not.

It must be taken in the same context as a Tartar raping/killing Ming citizens - the context is that in both scenarios, both are invaders in each other's homelands.

Where self-defence is concern, I never had any qualms about the extent to which a person can go.
I had no qualms about the Atomic bombs dropped in Japan.
In CHF and SMQ, some members questioned and said the Bombs should not have been dropped, and the the Allies could eventually get Japan to surrender.

I reminded these people that while the Allies were taking the longer time to get Japan to surrender, the innocent people living under Japanese occupation in China and SE Asia were suffering and dying daily.

So, you are wrong, the word "innocent" does exists in my dictionary.


Again, you do not understand what I had posted.

Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler did commit unspeakable evils, on a wider scale than I know compared to Great Britain or America. Just against the Jews alone, the death tally stand at 6 million.

The USA also perpetrated policies tantamounting to genocide to the native Americans.

I consider that act as being no less evil than what the Nazi did to the Jews.

I do not know how many Native Americans died as a result of the policy of the US government, I suspect it might be less than 6 million.

USA should not claim that they kill only 600,000 Native Americans compared to 6,000,000 Jews by the Nazi, and hence USA is less evil based on the comparison of numbers.

It is one thing to say that the Nazi caused greater damage by killing 6,000,000 compared to USA killing 600,000.

But it is a different thing altogether to say that it makes the act of the Nazi more evil or the act of the USA less evil.

Notice, I am referring to the act here, not the people.

Whether an act is evil or not has nothing to do with whether a more serious harm has been done by another act.

A man who raped one woman should not claim to be morally superior to another man who raped ten women, or say that he is less evil than the other rapist.

Before you get upset and say that you never have the idea that a one woman rapist is less evil than a ten-women rapist, and accuse me of distorting what you say,

Then let me remind you that I too never said that killing in self-defence makes one a criminal.


And I suggest you understand what I am saying first before making such suggestions.

I will not avoid your points; I think they are valid but I cannot respond to all points at the same time. Since you started your post with the story about the proposed killing of the Five Surnames, I felt I should address that first and point out that not all historians take this as a true historical event. Whether or not I agree with Dardess is irrelevant; my point was only that the Five Surnames story is not accepted universally as evidence.

I will make it clear here what I think of the Mongol leaders like Temujin and Khubilai. I do not think they were the greatest leaders in Chinese history. I think they were among the most successful conquerors and military leaders in world history, but I don't think this is really a good thing because I am a pacifist. I also think they killed more people than many other leaders in history, and that they were more discriminatory towards the Han than most other foreign rulers in Chinese history (including the Manchus). But I do not think they were more evil than the Nazis simply because they may have killed more than 6 million people. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews. The Mongols massacred the population of the Xi Xia capital because Xi Xia betrayed them and indirectly caused the death of Chinggis Khan, but they did not try to exterminate the Tangut people. The Mongols also massacred some Chinese cities that had refused to surrender, but when the Southern Song capital Hangzhou surrendered to the Mongols in 1276, its population was not massacred. So the Mongols did not have a systematic program of genocide - they just pragmatically massacred cities that wasted Mongol resources by not surrendering, so as to scare other cities into surrendering. It was a very cruel policy, of course, but it was not genocide. You can accuse the Mongols of not valuing human life, and I would agree with you. But I feel that you cannot accuse them of genocide.

You have mentioned that 90% of the population of north China 华北地区 was killed during the Mongol occupation. But most works of history state that the 90% decline was a result of the Bubonic Plague that was spread into China by Mongols returning from a campaign in Burma. Historians believe this was also how it probably spread into Europe, from the Mongol troops besieging the city of Kaffa on the Black Sea. Many Mongol troops were dying from plague and the surviving ones tried to end the siege quickly by catapulting the dead bodies of their own men into the city. Genoese merchants who survived the siege carried the plague to Italy. This is from an article I found on the internet in early 2005 (it is no longer online):



Thus the Mongols did cause tens of millions of deaths in China and Europe, but mostly not intentionally. They were just the agents for spreading a disease that did the killing. In a similar way, the Spanish have been accused of genocide for spreading smallpox and other diseases in the Americas, killing tens of millions of Native Americans who had no immunity. But the same counter-argument has been made, that the Spanish were not being deliberately genocidal and thus were only unintentionally guilty of it. In fact, they wanted to use the Native Americans as labourers and did not understand why so many of them were dying so fast. It forced them to start bringing in African slaves as labour instead.

More on the issue of the population decline in the Americas, and whether it was genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples

We also have an earlier thread on the Yuan population decline in China:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...ulation+decline

There are Japanese militarists who never accept the fact that Japan ever make any crimes in WWII. They think the Japnaness army did nothing wrong except in WWII. Is it strange some historian would support their idea if they choose to side with them? Is it strange if a “professional historian” do not accept the authority of the book 《元史》 when he chose to side with the Mongol Empire? I have read something much worse from a book written by a English professor in some humanian deparment at a British University. He praise Chingiskhan is so generious to his people that he always send them treasury of gold, silk etc as gift. Of course you can understand this profess do not bother to mentioned all thes treasurey are rubbed from China, Persia or some other region and he never bother to mention how many victims were made. Didn’t I give you an example with a picture that how some Chinese historian distorted history? If you think those “historians|” should be believed without any douts, I simply will question you own credit as historian in that case.



This is simply not true, the 90% population had been killed far before the Mongol army tried to conquered Burmar.

Let me quote the reference.
(宋)李心传《建炎以来朝野杂记》卷十九乙集
贞佑元年即，崇庆三年至宁元年也，十一月至二年春正月，凡破九十余郡所过无不残灭，两河山东数千里人民杀戮几尽、金帛子女牛羊马畜皆席卷而去、屋庐焚毁、城郭北墟矣。
This was recorded by Song the historians before Mongol conquire Tangunt and Jin. It clearly indicated that the Mogol army killed every that they met and almost all the poeple were killed in the place where the Mongol army passed by. Isn't it a typical policy of genicide. They also try to burn every house and destroy every farm after their plunder, in order to prevent survivals. Similar records are found in the book of Persian historian, that I will quote later.

The reference I quoted above, a record to local log book of history in Sichuan Provice.
明杨慎《全蜀艺文志》辑明赵枋（左木水旁代）《史母程氏传》：“呜呼！余尝得《三卯录》读之，蜀民就死，率五十人为一聚，以刀悉刺之，乃积其尸，至莫（暮），疑不死，复刺之。（示旁，以下同）异孙尸积于下，暮刺者偶不及，尸血淋漓入异孙口，夜半始苏，匍匐入林，薄匿他所。后出蜀为枢密使。尝坦视人，未尝不泣下。贺靖权成都，录城中骸骨一百四十万，城外者不计。”

which indicate the mongol army try to systematically kill every single person in Chendu, and at least 1.4 million people were killed in a single city. There are other records from other authors in other cities in Sichuan province, which indicated exactly the same type of genocide engaged by the Mongol army. There are too many so that I just dumped here without translation, and let the reader to judge whether it is true or not.



宋阳枋，《字溪集。上宣谕余谯隐（余□）书》（四库全书珍本））：“蜀自辛卯以来，士夫军民死于兵者不知几百千万。远者未暇论，姑自近者言之。辛丑西州之祸，殆不忍言。汉嘉之屯，阵亡者众。江阳失险，泸、叙以往，穷幽极远，搜杀不遗。僵尸满野，良为寒心。”

《续资治通鉴。宋纪。一百六十三》载：“绍定四年（1231 AD）八月，蒙古拖雷分骑兵三万人入大散关，攻破凤州，径过华阳，屠洋州，攻武休，开生山，截焦崖，出武休东南，遂围兴元府，民散走死于沙窝者数十万。”。
　　　　　　　　
《元史。李忽南吉传》：“三年（1266 AD），宋军陷大梁平山寨(今重庆梁平)，平章赛典赤令忽兰吉领兵千余骑，掠其境，先以六百人觇之，闻寨中拥老携幼西去，追击之，斩首三百级。”
　　　　　　　　
这段文字记载有蒙军不分老幼的屠杀。
　　　　　　　　
吴昌裔，《论救蜀四事疏》：（《名臣奏议。卷一百》）“迨至去冬（嘉熙三年）其祸甚惨。毁潼、遂。残梁、合。来道怀安，归击广安，而东川震矣。屠成都，焚眉州，蹂践邛、蜀、彭、汉、简、池、永康，而西州之人，十丧七、八矣。毒重庆，下涪陵，扫荡忠、万、云安、梁山、开、达，而夔峡之郡县仅存四、五矣。又虏所不到之地，悉遭讧溃之扰，民假为溃，溃假为鞑，而真鞑之兵往往借我军之衣装旗号，愚民耳目而卒屠之，盖虽荒郊绝岛之间，无一不被燎原沸鼎之毒也。”
　　　　　　　　
元虞集，《道园学古录。眉州史氏程夫人墓志铭》（《四部丛刊》）：“眉州青神史氏，有母曰程夫人者，。。。会国朝（元朝）以金始亡，将并力于宋。连兵于蜀，蜀人受祸惨甚，死伤迨尽，千百不存一二，谋出峡逃生。”

So after such systematic genocide, how many people could survive and wait until the disease to kill them?

OK, if any one think all the above Chinese records are simply made up by liars from “Han-Chauvinists” historian, let me quote some parts that recorded by anArabic historians Ibn Al-ather in that ages. Quoted from Medieval Sourcebook:
Ibn al-Athir: On The Tatars, 1220-1221CE

…..Nay, it is unlikely that mankind will see the like of this calamity, until the world comes to an end and perishes, except the final outbreak of Gog and Magog.
For even Antichrist will spare such as follow him, though he destroy those who oppose him, but these Tatars spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes. …….
This article exists in many web sites and can be easily found via google. I have made a complete translation of the article that can be found from http://www.han-people.com/bbs/Announce/Ann...ardID=7&ID=1474


Now turn the recording language from Arabic to Persian,. Here is the book “The history of the world conqueror”, that was written by a Persian hisotrian in the Mongol government. The book is distinguished as one of the most valuable book by all historians who study related to the Mongol Empire. I scan the whole book into my computer, however, worrying that I might violate some law concerning copy right, I only post a part of the book in this address: http://www.han-people.com/bbs/Announce/Ann...ardID=7&ID=2051 I also translated a chapter that describe how the chapter that how they genocide 140 millions people in Merv, in which I made a comparison to the records for the genocide in the Cheng Du 成都 city so that the read would find these two record from completely different sources. Now I quote the English version of this chapter：


The Mongols now entered the town and drove all the inhabitants, nobles and commoners, out on to the plain. For four days and nights the people continued to come out of the town; the Mongols detained them all, separating the women from the men. [127] Alas ! how many peri-like ones did they drag from the bosoms of their husbands! How many sisters did they separate from their brothers ! How many parents were distraught at the ravishment of their virgin daughters

The Mongols ordered that, apart from four hundred artisans whom they specified and selected from amongst the men and some children, girls and boys, whom they bore off into captivity, the whole population, including the women and children, should be killed, and no one, whether woman or man, be spared. The people of Merv were then distributed among the soldiers and levies, and, in short, to each man was allotted the execution of three or four hundred persons. The people (arhSb) of Sarakhs in avenging their cadi exceeded [the ferocity of] such as had no knowledge of Islam or religion and passed all bounds in the abasement and humiliation [of their fellow Moslems]. So many had been killed by nightfall that the mountains became hillocks,** and the plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty.

We have grown old in a land in whose expanses one treads on nought but the cheeks of maidens and the breasts of striplings.

Then, at Toli's command, the outworks were destroyed, the citadel levelled with the ground and the tnaqsura of the mosque belonging to the sect of the greatest imam Abu-HanifatsYG0<f have mercy on him!) set on fire. One might have said that this was in vengeance for what befell in the time of the righteous rule of Shams-ad-Din Mas'ud of Herat, the vizier of the kingdom of Sultan Tekish ;26 who caused a Friday mosque to be built for the followers of the imam Shafi'i,27 which fanatics set fire to by night.

When the Mongols had finished plundering and leading captive and massacring, Ziya-ad-Din 'Ali, one of the notables of Merv, who had been spared by reason of his retirement, received orders to enter the town and be emir and governor of those that reassembled out of nooks and crannies. The Mongols also left Barmas M as shahtta.

When the army departed, [128] those that had sought refuge in holes and cavities came out again, and there were gathered together some five thousand persons. A party of Mongols belonging to the rearguard then arrived and wished to have their share of slaughter. They commanded therefore that each person should bring a skirtful of grain out on to the plain for the Mongols; and in this way they cast into the well of annihilation most of those that had previously escaped. Then they proceeded along the road to Nishapur and slew all they found of those who had turned back from the plain and fled from the Mongols when halfway out to meet them. In this manner many persons lost their lives, and hereafter Taisi, who had turned back from Yeme Noyan's army, arrived in Merv; he too laid balm on their wounds," and all that the Mongols found there were drawn out of the noose of life and caused to drink the draught of annihilation.

Now the sayyid 'Izz-ad-Din Nassaba was one of the great sayyiis and renowned for his piety and virtue. He now together with some other persons passed thirteen days and nights in counting the people slain within the town. Taking into account only those that were plain to see and leaving aside those that had been killed in holes and cavities and in the villages and deserts, they arrived at a figure of more than one" millionthree hundred thousand. 'Izz-ad-Din quoted a quatrain of 'Urnar-i-Khayyam which was a propos of the occasion: ^

The form of a cup in which it has been moulded together
Even the drunkard does not hold it lawful to shatter.
So many lovely heads and feet—by his art
Who has joined them in love and who has broken them in hate?

Please note that, the Mongols tried to genocide every one, including those who survived in the first slaughtering, this is exactly consistent to the Chinese record concerning the genocide in Cheng Du 成都 city.

In the same book,
When the Mongols had finished the slaughter they caught sight of a woman who said to them: “spare my life and I will give you a great pearl which I have.’ Buut when they sought the pearl she said: “I have swallowed it”. Whereupon they ripped open her belly and found several pearls. On this account Chingiz-Khan commanded that they should rip open all the bellies of all the slain.

By the way, I have not heard Nazi army “ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes.” Or “ripping living women’s stomach to find peals”. Does Yun think still consider this kind of behavior less evil than Nazi?


Now, if we do not like muslims, lets turn our eyes into the records from John of Plano Carpini, who was sent by a Pope (whose name is something like Enorson IV) as ambassador to the Mongol empire, in order to persuade the latter not to killing innocent Europeans. The ambassador wrote a book with name of “History of Mongol” that present the information he collected concerning the Mongol empire. I do not have English version at hand, but I manage to plant the Chinese text into computer and put it here http://www.han-people.com/bbs/Announce/Ann...rdID=7&ID=16069. If any one doubt my credit to tell the real text from that book, at least, this book could be brought from Amazon, (I think one publisher rename the title with something like “the Mongol that we called tartars ”)

对于其他民族，他们动不动就暴跳如雷。他们也经常欺骗其他民族，实际上，他们从来不讲真话。当然，他们开始的时候总是甜言蜜语的，但是到了最后，他们就会象只毒蝎子那样发难。他们十分狡猾和欺诈，总是竭尽全力用欺骗来蒙蔽所有的人。他们行事手段卑鄙得象他们的饮食一样污秽。他们想算计别人时，能够用极其巧妙的手段隐蔽意图。让别人毫无防备。也无法来对付他们的诡计。

喝得大醉被他们认为是一件光荣的事情，即使有人喝酒太多呕吐生病，也不停止喝酒。他们非常贪婪吝啬。习惯于向别人要东西，自己却一毛不拔。他们把屠杀其他民族不当作一回事。总之，根本不可能把他们所有邪恶的品质都写下来，实在太多了。
This was exactly the same impression from the record written by “Han-Chauvinist” in the same periods. And it was also recorded in a Persian history (who was never caught by the Mongols, but I do not have his book at hand). So when the historian distinguished by CHF administrators suggest Han-Chauvinism demonizing tartar, they really should explain why other non-unrelated group such as Persian, Russian cooperate with “Han-chauvinists” .

凡是能吃的东西他们都吃，他们吃狗、狼、狐狸和马，而且，需要的时候，他们也吃人肉。例如，当他们攻打中国的一个城市(中国皇帝就驻扎在这里)，他们围城太久，把他们自己的粮食完全吃光了，一点吃的也没有，他们就在每十个人中抽出一个人来当食物吃。他们吃母马在生小马时排泄出来的脏东西。不仅这样，我甚至看见他们吃虱子。他们说：“这东西吃我儿子的肉，喝他的血，难道我就不能吃它了？”我还见过他们吃小老鼠。

This paragraph decribed how the Mongol army eat human being as their food when they surrounded and attacked they Beijing. Why did not they eat civilian but their own soldier instead? There is only one explanation, simply because they had already killed every single person in the area that they horses could reach. Isn’t this a typical genocide?

Back to a record from a Chinese Embass The similar record that describeely in《蒙鞑备录》that confirm again that they genocide every single person that they could find.
凡攻大城，先擊小郡，掠其人民以供驅使。乃下令曰：每一騎兵，必欲掠十人。人足備，則每名需草或柴薪、或土石若干，書夜迫逐，緩者殺之，迫逐填塞其壕塹立平，或供鵝洞炮座等用，不惜數萬人，以此攻城壁，無不破者。城破，不問老幼妍醜、貧富逆順，皆誅之，略不少恕。


I have seen so many historian that have give completely different conclusion. So the first sentence must be rephrased such as, Those historians that were recommended by Yun, believe this was also ……

However, considering the historians that you have recommended always have tendency to defend the Mongol empire but do not bother to explain why their statement in often severely contradicted to the original documents, I think their credit are very extremly quesable.

A job of defense lawyer for criminals would do something like this; when there are possibilities of both genocide and innocent, they never consider the possibility of the second. In such a case, I think Yun is a typical defense lawyer rather than a historian whenever discussing the topic related to the Mongol Empire.

However, there is another type of “professional history” do something like this, when there is only one possibility that is genocide, they still claim the only possibility is innocent. This type of historian, I would not call them history, but liars who have professional historian skills to fool the public.

Believe me or not, I read so many articles from this kind of “historian”. I even write a serious paper describing how exactly the Chinese historians lied. It was posted by SCP and it seems no one bother to give any comments other than emotional ones.

But let me put my statement this way, I think and almost sure that there is a international organization, some part of this organization must come the golden family, deliberately make up this part of history to glorify the murders. There are also historians from Western countries who actively cooperating with this organized action . I have document to prove how they make lies. One of such example can be found here, http://www.han-people.com/bbs/Announce/Ann...rdID=7&ID=24874 . In the same time, if one find how the BBC program join this cooperation, it is not so difficult to find out this kind of political movement that are highly organized. I would certainly like present the document to support this point. However, I am simply too tired now and would do it later.


I simply have too many documents, other than that original documents I presented above, to prove the Mongol genocide every person they meet in the beginning period of the empire. After they somehow integrated with Han-chinese, they gradually killed less and less people, not because of they become nice, but simply because they found Chinese can give treasury to them. Also they stopped killing after Yuan established, because they found the resistant would be too strong to conqurie the entire China if do not stop to do it. I have read too many original and second-hand paper that support this idea. How can it be possible that the disease kill many people where the Mongol excute etic genocide, in constrast, when they stop massacra when conquring southern China, the diseas stopped working. Why southern Song terrrity never suffer from such disease such northen china after the Mongol attacking them?

The piece of paper you presented have no comments on those oroginal documents that are controdict to the idea that the population were earased by diseased not by enocide. There are simply too many documents to prove the Mongol army excute enocide when the populiation in China and Mulsim dropped. European did suffer from black disease, however, from the several sources that I have read, experts on both Mongol history
And European history suggested this was a consequence that the Mongol army’s tradition to use corrected dead body of human to kill people. It is very strange that you quote articles from only one type of historians whom I have suspected as liars for long time.

Let me present the work that the historian suggested Mongol use corrupted human dead body as biological weapon next time. But it is really not a rare story, but quite well-known, at least before all these new theory come out without any reasonable argument to overthrow the old theory. If you read the book of the wolf totem, and watch BBC program that praise Chigiskhan, than read the link I have presented, I think you would easy find all these actions are organized and cooperated each other. The article you presented, in my opinion, is just a prograpanda from a certain polical organization. I have suspected that such a organization existed in China for long time. What I do not understand is that, why some international professional historian give up their skills and easily believe this kind of foolish theory that controdict to so many original documents and ealiar work from ealiear generations of historians. Were they paid somehow to promote this kind of rubish?

While I fully trust all of what you said is true and reliable, but I would like point out something in addition.

When Tangut (西夏) was invited to interact with Saracens in mid-Asia by Chingis-Khan, I think it is somehow a very similar invitation from the Huns to the Jie group to interact with Han-Chinese, of course, I won’t say they are the same extent. If the noble of Jie group refused the invitation from Hun, as Tangut King refused Chingis-Khan, then Hun would somehow do something quite similar as Chingis-Khan did., but again, I did not say in a same extent. I am sure Yun knows what happened to the Tangut, but for those who do not know, the whole population (I think at least several millions) of Tangut including all the women and children, completely disappeared, as suggested by the Mongol poem “secrete history of the Mongols”

Spoiling the Tangut people,
making Iluqu Bruqan to be Siduru,
accomplishing him causing the mother and the father of the Tangud people,
unto the seed of seed
to vanish muquli msquli
he made a decree
saying
“while I ee food, saying
‘theare vanished muquli msquli’
making them to die”
be ye saying this

My Chinese translation
洗劫了党项人，把西夏王李德旺改名叫下拜，把他处死；把党项人的
上到父母长辈，
下到子子孙孙，
都干干净净地灭绝、
断子绝孙。
就将下令说：“你们每次吃饭的时候，都要说：‘
干干净净地灭绝、
断子绝孙。
把他们杀死、灭绝’，
一定要说。这是因为党项人说话不算数。”

By the way, for those who is interested in reading secret history of the Mongols in Chinese, I have half of the book here
http://www.han-people.com/bbs/Announce/ann...lag=1&Ap=2&Aq=2
This verson was translated by myself, based on many other existing translations. I explained the reason I re-translated in that post. One of them is I found the name of each Mongols in that book have very interesting meaning. I manage to find a way to know the meaning of the name from dictionary of Mongolian language. So if a new translation has demonstrated the meaning of the book, it must be more interesting to read. However, when I finished half of the book, I found it is a mission impossible, because there are simply too many names and make me feel too boring to finish in a consistent way. But without translation of those names, my new version is not any better than the old ones. So I put the first half of the book on net, as a fun.

Anyway, what I meant, is that, if Tangut refused the invitation to interact with Saracens, they have to die. If they accept the inviation, the king of Tangut is still a nobel, like Shi Le’s accesstors, but in this case, I would call the Tangut the slave army. Of course, it might be not academically or politically correct name, but it is the similar reason I call the Jie group as a slave army of Huns. Because I think, the Hun and Mongols empires are very similar types.

Also if we assume Tangut accept invitation to Chingiskhan and immigrate to Saracen reagion, what would they do. I am sure they would do something similar that Juvaini described in his famous book. In that case, I think the Saracens would think they are a tribe from Tartar, or Mongol, but did not know they are Tanguts. In fact, many Han-Chinese and Korean are in Mongol’s army when Chingiskhan attacked the Saracen regions, because the most powerful siege weapon come from the Han-Chinese, accoriding to something I read before. . But I think these Han-Chinese, if they really joined the murders, should be called slave army of Han-Chinese. But it seems not be accepted by professional historians.

So when Juvaini described that 1.4 millions Saracens (Persian and turks) were killed in Merv, many of the murder were actually Han-Chinese, although I do not know exactly how many. But Juvaini and other Saracen historians only said it was the tartar who did it. If I am considered to be too ignorant to know the difference between Jie and Xiongnu (Hun), Juvaini and the local Saracens should also be considered as too ignorant to know the difference between Tartars and Han-Chinese. Even if most of people in one army branch are Han-Chinese, they most likely would still think it was a just a tribe of Tartar. So is the case in the five Hun period. The local ignorant Han-Chinese did not know some of what they called five Huns were actually not really Huns called by their ealier generations. I know it of course, but I would like to follow their traditional names.

I summary, I think the interactions and integrations between different ethnic groups in the periods of five Huns are some how similar to the those between Han-Chinese and Saracens in the age of Mongol empire. Personally I personally dislike these types of interactions. There are simply too many other ways to immigrate to other countries in history. Bringing new technology to other regions is one of my favorite way. In that case people would be very friendly each other and have happy integration. This happened not only in European history all the time, but also happen in China all over the history. I think it is same all over the world however, I only have investigated in Chinese history and read some similar conclusions from European historians. In china New technology both came from outside to China, and the other way around. There are uncountable of other ethnic group integrated into Han-Chinese (华夏) in this way in the last several thousand years. However, I have the impression that some historians only favor the integration method imposed by Mongol, Huns and similar Nomadic groups. They seems only like the way Juvaini described and have no interests on other types of inter-ethic interactions. Is my impression correct?