Talk:Khanbaliq
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ancient name of Beijing?
[edit]if the characterisation of Khanbaliq as the ancient Mongol name for Beijing is totally correct. I am not a historian, but I have been told that the Ming did not only 'rebuild' the city, they virtually 'buried' the capital of the hated Mongols under their new city. (This was in contrast to the Manchus, who simply took over the Ming city without much change.)
I personally feel that a description along the lines of 'Khanbaliq was the capital of the ancient Mongol Empire and stood on the site of the modern city of Beijing. ...... ...... The city was completely rebuilt by the Ming and moved several kilometres south in the process.'
I suggest that there may be POV problems involved. To say that Khanbaliq is Beijing emphasises the continuity of the city's existence, which is a view that modern Beijing would like to promote (the 悠久的历史 line) and is also slightly Sinocentric, in that it follows the Chinese historiographical tradition of forcing history into an orderly succession of dynasties.
Are there any historians who could comment on this? Bathrobe 23:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- There has always been a city there throughout recorded history. It may have been destroyed several times, but it was always rebuilt immediately, or failing that, part of the city survived the attack and lived on. In that sense, yes, Khanbaliq is Beijing. Tenochtitlan is Mexico City (and the city actually says it was founded in 1325). Rome was destroyed and depopulated in the 560s, but it's still Rome. Conversely, the city the Romans built at Carthage and was later the capital of King Gaiseric isn't the same as the Carthage of Hannibal, because the site sat unoccupied for about 100 years after the Third Punic War.
- Just my opinion...take it for what it's worth. Jsc1973 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Jsc1973 is correct. It had happened frequently throughout the history of China (and of the world). Actually, saying Ming burned Khanbaliq (Dadu) is also incorrect, because Ming in fact burned only the imperial palaces in Khanbaliq, not the whole city. The city was actually never destroyed since Mongol-founded Yuan Dynasty up to now.--209.90.144.38 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Jsc is incorrect on the point you're discussing. This was a new city from the old one at a new site and in an entirely different watershed. The Ming burned quite a bit of the city but rebuilt most of it. On the other hand, the Ming did rebuild on the same site and Khanbaligh was therefore the origin and nucleus of the present city in a way that is not true, e.g., of Zhongdu.
- Jsc1973 is correct. It had happened frequently throughout the history of China (and of the world). Actually, saying Ming burned Khanbaliq (Dadu) is also incorrect, because Ming in fact burned only the imperial palaces in Khanbaliq, not the whole city. The city was actually never destroyed since Mongol-founded Yuan Dynasty up to now.--209.90.144.38 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- In other words, Bathrobe's hesitation is very well taken and in fact completely correct regarding earlier cities labelled "early Beijing" in many histories. But Cambaliech is the origin of the city we've got now, which eventually expanded until it ate up all the other related sites. — LlywelynII 09:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- The first sentence is problematic. "Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times" mentions that the Mongol name for this city is "Daidu" (p131).--207.112.71.179 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- After the Chinese name. The Turkic and Mongolian name for the city was Khanbalik before the Jurchens even left. Cf. Brill and the Mongolian text heading the Chinese wiki's article. — LlywelynII 09:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Naming proposal
[edit]doesn't the fact that Khanbaliq was used before the city was even founded implies it is not even referring to this city in question? 58.182.210.94 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Chambalyech, my lord...
[edit]This city has more variations on its name than Gaddafi did. I've run into similar things before but is there any version of {{Persondata}} available for places that lets us list and search for name variants without needing to include all of them in the running text? I don't really want to have to look at "Cambaliech" or "Khanbalykh" or "Ta-tou" or "Khān Bāliķ" but we should be able to list them somewhere in the metadata. — LlywelynII 09:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Images
[edit]Pretty sure we can't use these for copyright reasons
- 1, apparently an installation at some Chinese museum
- 2, a good city plan from History of Far Eastern Art (5th Edition), although it lacks the canals and includes some Chinglish ("Temple to the God")
- 3, another city plan
- 4, claims to be the Yuan-era northern end of Taiye Lake
but the information certainly isn't so if someone has a friend on the map-drawing board, we might be able to mock up something more detailed and better-looking than what we're using now.
Similarly,
- 5 is a pretty good administrative map but currently all in Chinese
We should also be able to find some surviving art from the period or shots of the Tucheng. — LlywelynII 11:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
"Great metropolitan"?
[edit]Although Great metropolitan has redirected here since 2006, no pages link to that and there is no basis for that name in the article – the term "metropolitan" is not used in the article. While Great capital is used, and that term is validated by the article text. "Great metropolitan" just strikes me as bad English. Good English would use "Great city" or "Great metropolitan area". Thus, I am redirecting Great metropolitan to Great Metropolitan Handicap. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seems very reasonable - thanks for doing that. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khanbaliq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020070524/http://www.btmbeijing.com/contents/en/btm/2004-09/beijing/dadu to http://www.btmbeijing.com/contents/en/btm/2004-09/beijing/dadu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Baliq
[edit]Baliq means fish in Azeri (Azerbaijani). Isn't this the case in the etymology of the word Khanbaliq? (Based on the fact that Turkic languages were predominant in the region at that time.) Aminabzz (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- C-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Chinese history articles
- Mid-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Mongols articles
- High-importance Mongols articles
- WikiProject Mongols articles