Who is the most important Mongol ruler after Genghis Khan? - Page 2 - Historum

**Wenge** · October 31st, 2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnia illustrantur

Actually during the Yuan Dynasty, Kublai Kahn struggled to maintain his nomadic culture and the culture of his people so they would not be assimilated. It was also during this time in which Han Chinese experienced lower social status. This was the social hierarchy: 1. mongolians 2. nomads 3. smaller chinese ethnic groups 4. Han Chinese
Kublai Kahn may have "envisioned a unified country under confucious ideals" but his regime did otherwise.
"Kublai was eventually synicized and his Mongolian influenced government battled between their ways and the demands of the Chinese. The division in the government and frustrations of the Chinese people were not the only reasons for his downfall. Kublai sought expansionism to appease his frustrated Mongolian advisors and sought after Java and Japan. His attempts failed and cost his government extensive amounts of money. The paper currency he created caused inflation and continual conflicts between disgruntled religious groups arose in the mixed society he fostered. Consequently, with a declining government in his hands and an ache in his heart, Kublai became an obese drunkard and died at the age of 79. "

The parts you posted do not tell the entire story. Kublai was a capable ruler and it was the fault of succeeding rulers that brought the downfall of the Chinese Khanate. The Chinese Khanate fell in much the same fashion that the Ming fell to the Manchurians. The first leaders were strong and ambitious but the succeeding Emperors of the Ming were lazy and stagnate.

Omnia illustrantur · October 31st, 2011, 07:44 PM

Kublai Kahn was like Louis XIV in my opinion. Capable yes, did his policies necessarily pave the way for his successors to continue ruling efficiently? No. His reign individually was great, but in a general context? I dont believe so.

**Wenge** · October 31st, 2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnia illustrantur

Kublai Kahn was like Louis XIV in my opinion. Capable yes, did his policies necessarily pave the way for his successors to continue ruling efficiently? No. His reign individually was great, but in a general context? I dont believe so.

My personal opinion of him is that he was a traitor to his people and he destroyed the Mongolian Empire for his own vanity. I cannot ignore what he did for the Chinese Khante though.

**mingming** · October 31st, 2011, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wenge

The parts you posted do not tell the entire story. Kublai was a capable ruler and it was the fault of succeeding rulers that brought the downfall of the Chinese Khanate. The Chinese Khanate fell in much the same fashion that the Ming fell to the Manchurians. The first leaders were strong and ambitious but the succeeding Emperors of the Ming were lazy and stagnate.

I would say Kublai set the stage for the Yuan's collapse when he decided it was fine to create a caste system and put the majority Han Chinese population at the bottom. I think that's what most people are referring to when they say Kublai abused the Han Chinese. The Manchus were much smarter about the way they treated the Han and they promoted more unity.

sylla1 · November 1st, 2011, 08:04 AM

Kublai Khan may be considered as a great or capable monarch just by the utterly biased apologetic and self-promoting narrative of Marco Polo and any of the countless historians influenced by him.

He was objectively a quite lousy ruler, either from the Mongolian or the Chinese standpoint (as our Mingming rightly pointed out on the latter).

Omnia illustrantur · November 1st, 2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Kublai Khan may be considered as a great or capable monarch just by the utterly biased apologetic and self-promoting narrative of Marco Polo and any of the countless historians influenced by him.

He was objectively a quite lousy ruler, either from the Mongolian or the Chinese standpoint (as our Mingming rightly pointed out on the latter).

I completely agree with you, look good on paper, when you examine closely, on crappy ruler. Again, my asian version of Louis XIV. One thing Kublai did well though I have to admit is integrating more western influences, but that caste system was a very stupid idea. You can't resist Chinese culture, the culture that has thrived a thousand years before you conquered it. You can only accept. The manchu realized this which is why they called themselves "Chinese" and a "Chinese Dynasty" not "Chinese Kahnate".