Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam

Exaggeration

Background of the First Mongol Invasion uses 'coffee table' type Encyclopedia of the Mongols that has been pointed out elsewhere in related articles as being unreliable in many parts. 100,000 comes from primary, contemporary sources, and no one in the field believes that. A more scholarly source is needed here. The logistics of such a force - so far from supply lines in a tropical climate - would have been beyond the powers of the Mongol empire, unlike advancing across steppe in Eurasia. Additionally, Hulagu's army in the invasion of the Middle East is generally considered to be the largest single army the Mongols ever mustered, and that was around 50,000. I'll look around and see what I have, but interested parties should also tweak this section. Thanks. 50.111.19.21 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hsiao in 'The Military Establishment of the Yuan Dynasty' (1978) points out the entire force of Mongke of 105,000 - of which only 97,000 can be attested; and establishes the invasion force of Burma at about 12,000. This gives a more realistic picture. However, trying to track down James Anderson's work, 'Man and Mongols: the Dali and Đại Việt Kingdoms in the Face of the Northern Invasions'- which should have the details for a reference.50.111.19.21 (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Source found - article adjusted.50.111.19.21 (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced and context-less relative casualty terms "slightly light" and "heavy"

@七战功成: If you can point out any references that explicitly label the overall casualties in any of the invasions as slightly light or heavy as you did here, then please do so here. Furthermore, these are relative terms that need context in order to mean anything. If there are no direct references and no context then these relative terms shouldn't be included. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: 1. Elleman, Bruce A. (2012), China as a Sea Power, 1127-1368: A Preliminary Survey of the Maritime Expansion and Naval Exploits of the Chinese People During the Southern Song and Yuan Periods, U.S. Naval War College: NUS Press, ISBN 9789971695057 p.302

2. Delgado, James P. (2008). Khubilai Khan's Lost Fleet: In Search of a Legendary Armada. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. P.160

3. Anderson, James A.; Whitmore, John K., eds. (2014). China's Encounters on the South and Southwest: Reforging the Fiery Frontier Over Two Millennia. p.127

These are about the second and third invasion. Are these enough clear? Of course, maybe "slightly light" is not suitable for the first invasion because the detail of Mongol's loss is not quite clear. 七战功成 03:39, 5 Novermber 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for actually giving specific references. The only relevant quotes from those pages regarding casualties seem to be:

1. Lo & Elleman p.302: could you give the quote you are referring to?
2. Delgado p.160 regarding 1285: the Dai Viet [...] made sure very few Mongol or Chinese soldiers made it out of Vietnam alive.
3. Anderson & Whitmore p.127 regarding 1285: Many among the Yuan forces drowned or died in battle.

The Anderson & Whitmore is vague in terms of an actual description of the casualties. Both Delgado and Anderson-Whitmore suggest that there were significant casualties in at least a descriptive way (something resembling "heavy"). In general, the infobox should state something more precise than something like "heavy" because that could mean anything (hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?).

Are there any sources with actual estimates? — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want relatively detailed number of Mongol's losses, actually I have not yet find a reliable source like that. So just leave it blank there now before we find related sources. 七战功成 04:18, 5 Novermber 2020 (UTC)

If you happen to also find reliable sources with estimates for the number of militarized forces from Đại Việt in any of the invasions, that would useful to add too! — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:21, 5 November 2020 (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:

• Battle of Bach Dang (1288).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox "result" parameter

What should be in the |result= ​parameter of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template at the top of the article? 02:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Status quo since May 2020:

1. See Aftermath section

​ Proposed changes:

2. Đại Việt victory
3. (Bulleted list of specific consequences)
   
   • Đại Việt and Champa become tributary states of the Yuan dynasty after the first invasion of Đại Việt and the invasion of Champa
   • Mongols fail to impose greater tributes and direct oversight of internal Đại Việt affairs after the second and third invasions of Đại Việt

Survey (infobox "result" RfC)

Please use the discussion subsection below for responses and threaded discussion, and leave this subsection for one comment or !vote per editor.

• Option 1,: This is a complex series of four conflicts over three decades involving three (or four if the Song dynasty is included), each with different goals and conclusions (e.g. early Mongol military & diplomatic successes in attacking the Song & establishing tributaries, later Đại Việt military & political successes in preventing further demands and direct internal oversight). This is discussed in the article, particularly in the Aftermath section, and the participants from WikiProject Military history pointed out in the previous discussion that in such complex situations, the project generally finds it preferable to cover the complex set of military, diplomatic, and political outcomes in the article body.
  Otherwise Option 3: these are supported by modern scholarly sources that discuss the conflict as a whole, which paint a significantly more mixed picture than Option 2 which is not the scholarly consensus outside of traditional Vietnamese historiography. For example:

  In studies of China or of the Mongols, it is recognized that fighting in Vietnam did not go well for the Mongols. Nevertheless, the campaigns are often treated as a success because tributary relations with Dai Viet were eventually resumed. In contrast, Vietnamese historiography makes much of Dai Viet’s military victories over the Mongols, which support the idea of a Vietnamese people united in their struggle against foreign aggression.
  — Baldanza, Kathlene (2016). "Chapter 1: A brief history of Annan". Ming China and Vietnam: Negotiating Borders in Early Modern Asia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-53131-0.

  Annam in North Vietnam, and Champa in south Vietnam accepted status as tributary vassals. Punitive campaigns against Burma and Annam in the 1280's, though not always militarily successful, brought reaffirmations of vassalage.
  — Hucker, Charles O. (1975). China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture. Stanford University Press. p. 285. ISBN 9780804723534.

  Despite the extreme difficulty of the tropical heat and the unfamiliar landscape, the Mongol army had success in Burma, Annam in northern Vietnam, and Laos.
  — Weatherford, Jack (2005). Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Three Rivers Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-609-80964-8.

  More specifically on the goals of the first Mongol invasion of Đại Việt:

  The purpose of the Mongols’ first foray into Dai Viet, in 1257, was to open a southern front against the Southern Song dynasty of China. [...] After a Tran prince and countless others were killed, and the capital Dong Kinh (present-day Hanoi) destroyed, Tran Du Tong submitted. The following year, the Tran commenced regular diplomatic relations with the Mongol court, sending an embassy with tributary gifts of local goods.
  — Baldanza, Kathlene (2016). "Chapter 1: A brief history of Annan". Ming China and Vietnam: Negotiating Borders in Early Modern Asia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-53131-0.

  On the second and third Mongol invasions of Đại Việt:

  The Mongols were not merely seeking tributary relations with Dai Viet along the lines of the Song dynasty. Their demands on the Tran government were unprecedented and far more onerous than typical demands or tributary missions and gifts by northern states. [...] Following their conquest of the Song, the Yuan court renewed their unprecedented demands on the Tran dynasty. [...] The Yuan decided to deal with the uncooperative Tran Kham by appointing their own “King of Annan” from afar. [...] After initial successes, including once more occupying and looting the capital, Toghan made the decision to retreat with the forward troops. [...] Even after these costly campaigns in difficult conditions, the Yuan were able to neither extend their borders into Dai Viet nor place their puppet emperor on the throne.
  — Baldanza, Kathlene (2016). "Chapter 1: A brief history of Annan". Ming China and Vietnam: Negotiating Borders in Early Modern Asia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-53131-0.

But again, there is no need for a declaration of "victory" or "loss" in the infobox, particularly when the multiple invasions involve various outcomes and goals. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC); added last sentence 03:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 As I have pointed out before, this is far too complex a subject for a single or even two line summary in the infobox. There are military, political and diplomatic outcomes that differ across the invasions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 The outcome does appear to be inconclusive since, while the Mongols were not successful in subjugating the states, the states nonetheless continued as tributaries. However, as PM67 indicates, the outcomes are more complex and consequently, a "see Aftermath" appears to best suit - particularly in light of the guidance at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 Yes, this is a very complex conflict with various branching outcomes, but the Infobox should do its best to summarize that information in as few words as possible. Isn't that the whole point of infoboxes? To quickly present some information that is further detailed in the article? I don't think a simple link to the relevant section does a very good job at that. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 After checking the aftermath section, I think this is too complicated to present satisfactorily in the infobox. Instead of oversimplifying it for our readers, let's redirect them to the section where it's fully explained. (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 This cant be simplified because of it's complexity. Sea Ane (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Deserving consideration for a snow close. See comments. Otr500 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. I seriously considered preforming a Snow close, but I thought it was maybe a bit too early. A snow close is quickly becoming quite reasonable. I reviewed the debate and the reasons here on Talk, as well as studying Aftermath section. It's clear that the results are too extended and nuanced to reasonably pack into the infobox. The fact that there have been efforts to POV-push revisionist history for the result-value also weighs against stuffing an oversimplified result in the infobox.
  I note that the article repeatedly mentions that Vietnamese historians tend to present a particularly favorable and victorious story for Vietnam. Under Wikipedia neutrality policy it is appropriate to explain the various views that exist on a subject. However I remind all editors that it is a violation of Wikipedia Policy for anyone to push that sort of fringe-nationalistic-nonsense into Wikipedia as some sort of actual "result", or to present it as if it were a mainstream report of historical events. WP:Editwarring a WP:Fringe nationalistic viewpoint, or persistently arguing a fringe nationalistic viewpoint, may be considered disruptive. Disruption may result in being blocked. WP:Sockpuppetry is also a violation of policy, it can also result in being blocked, it also pretty well identifies the sockpuppeter as having LOST the argument and desperately wasting everyone's time. It also tends to result in hasty dismissal of any new accounts that show up supporting that position. Alsee (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Per editors above. Idealigic (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. I am a veteran of fighting with people about trying to cram obtuse, loaded statements into an infobox, in particular at the War of 1812 article. Furious debates, nasty editors, and I eventually just stopped writing on the article altogether because of it.People are never happy with the infobox for controversial articles, and its perpetually changing. Definitely, 100% number 1. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. This is too complex to be summarized in few sentences. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Agree with many of the editors above that this is simply too complex for a short summary. More appropriate to have an aftermath section. TrueQuantum (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Read the article, instead of dreaming of a word that would contain all the complexity of the world. But this is only the usual infobox-war between "tributary" and "non-tributary". Using Simons p.53 as a proof of something, i.e. In late 1288 the Tran Emperor sent an envoy to China, offering tribute to the Mongol court in an attempt to prevent further invasions of Vietnam. In a significant conciliatory gesture the Vietnamese handed over captured Mongol officers looks like a joke. What was the amount of the so called tribute? Half the rice crop of the country, each year, or some prisoners, once ??? Pldx1 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (infobox "result" RfC)

Comments: I don't see a need of having specific RFC's on something like this. In fact, an RFC is the final stage in the dispute resolution process. On a quick read, I see a consensus for no change. I see a recommendation that apparently is against this consensus, a WikiProject, and that would bloat an infobox which would not be in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (to summarize): The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The body of the article is where we include information in detail to handle "complexity". When there is controversial content it absolutely should be relegated to the appropriate section so it can be neutrally presented according to policies and guidelines. It would seem a better goal would be edits to facilitate a positive peer review for promotion of a vital article instead of having a moot discussion. Otr500 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Otr500, I wondered too. But a look at the edit history will show an edit skirmish and the nom of the RfC has taken the initiative to resolve this. I don't think it unreasonable after a closer look. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500 and Cinderella157: This RfC was started after the dispute at Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam#Restarted discussion and the two edits mentioned by Cinderella157: 1, 2. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the history. I am not here to argue for or against any content dispute in the article body. The issue is content in the infobox. Comments were left at the Military history page (WikiProject) concerning this. Option 1 is clearly the only obvious choice. Option 2 is controversial so not appropriate and option 3 has far too much bloat, It is as mentioned "complex" to a point that trying to factually summarize it in the infobox is impossible. I cannot imagine that a "Đại Việt victory" would result in "Đại Việt and Champa become tributary states of the Yuan dynasty". That would be interesting to learn. A "we won so let's capitulate" seems unlikely and a clear victory by the Đại Việt might have prevented a second and third invasion. I don't know but I see enough confusion to know there is controversy.

My only point concerning a "formal RFC" is that it was still not really necessary. General comments left on the project page as a first step would have likely been sufficient since there are 895 active members with one weighing in being the "Lead coordinator". Two of those members gave a swing to consensus for option 1 considering it seems pretty clear. It is not that big deal I just mentioned that according to DS a formal RFC is considered the last phase.

Contrary to the comments of one editor I think article protectors can be an excellent thing on higher classed articles. More involvement might mean a better chance of article promotion and possibly prevent degradation that might result in delisting. Otr500 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Article move by YLoGM necessitating an article split

@YLoGM: Regarding your move here of this article from "Mongol invasions of Vietnam" to "Mongol invasions of Đại Việt", the new name ignores that part of this article is also about the invasion of Champa which is in modern-day Vietnam but was separate from Đại Việt at the time. In effect, the new title would be narrowing the scope of the article and necessitate a split for the Champa part into a new article.

If you still believe that this is the ideal course of action, then you can still formally propose it here on the talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first is the scope of the article (as written) and that the move title ("Mongol invasions of Đại Việt") does not reflect the present scope. The second issue is one of policy per Wikipedia:Article titles and that article titles are written using the English language. A case for a move would need to be made with respect to both issues. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC) PS Please note the fullness of Wikipedia:Article titles and not just that quoted. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)