I consider writing an adventure novel which is based on a historical fact. :book:
So, did the Mongols attack China in 1248?
Printable View
I consider writing an adventure novel which is based on a historical fact. :book:
So, did the Mongols attack China in 1248?
What do you consider China?
Tanguts in XiXia attacked in 1205.
Chin attacked in 1211.
Pre-emptive attack on a Song city in 1234.
.......Orda
I consider China as a land of antique technological progress, nowadays full scale communism, and a land of myths and beautiful women. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
@Orda Khan
That's all? Anyhow, thanks. :book:
I think the "Yuan dynasty" may be a start.....
You may wanna check out this page for 1st infos http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHEMPIRE/YUAN.HTM
I think he means what part of China were you talking about, because Mongols campaigned on-and-off against many Chinese states throughout the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Do you consider the Northern dynasty--Chin dynasty, whose capital was Zhongdu--actually "barbarians" in origin, but won against the native Song China and drove them south, China? The Chin dynasty was the one in which Genghis' infamous conquest of China was. Kubilai would be the one to defeat the Song in the south, much, much later on.
Do you consider Xi Xia China? That's not really a Chinese state but it was in what is now Chinese territory and was built on what was once Chinese territory also.
etc.
Do you mix up Swedes as Italians, some people mistake medieval Vikings for Roman legionaires...
Modern China is a composite of many other nations and it's combined history is very long in the tooth. So while the Mongals went through areas that we call China it was not in a lot of cases whom we think of as the modern Chinese (Mandarin dominant) whom they defeated.
Funny thing is for most Westerners they have encountered the Cantonese, who are not the majority in China.
It is like the Chinese thinking that the French are the dominant Europeans because they buy more YSL items.
Approach ancient China as if you are approaching Europe. It is a composite of many nations trying to beat each other... and it would make such a great TW series!
The Yuan was when the Mongols had not only attacked China, but already defeated it.
Edyz: I really don't see how China is full scale communism. If it's communism, then why do the rich go to different schools than the poor. Surely that's not equal? Also, why do some not even get a chance to go to school? Communism has really never existed and never will. True communism would just lead to most of the population lazing around, knowing that however hard they work, they won't make their own pay go up anyway.
Yeah, I know, but if you wanna get into the whole thing,it may be a good start. You will find out about guys like Juviani or Rashid-ad-Din, who were to write down Mongol history for the Khans (Yuan), starting as a smaller tribe in the steppes & ending with domination of Eurasia. Amongst will be the conquest of the Chin & Song empires... Right? Well, @edyzmedieval: try to find out about the above mentioned authors....they did write on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
???Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Those were the 3 states generally considered 'China', and the dates each was attacked.By your date of 1248, XiXia and Chin were defeated, only the Song remained. They fell in 1279 though the Yuan dynasty had been proclaimed by Qubilai in 1271
.........Orda
Thanks for the info guys. I read somewhere about a Mongol attack on a northern temple in China in about 1245-1250.
Anyways, thanks again. :book:
So would I be correct in assuming you are intereted in finding information about a particular attack/seige during the campaign as opposed to details of the campaign as a whole? Therefore, your adventure would focus on the events leading to and surrounding a particular assault? If this is so, I will dig out as much information as I can find, however most of the accounts would be generalised with detailed information being rather scant. The Yuan Shi would possibly offer more precise detail but would need translation and would add considerably to the difficulty of research. As you state 'based on historical fact' I think it would be far less time consuming to have the bare facts and allow a little poetic licence to beef up the storyline. A few fictional characters and a parallel story running alongside historical fact maybe?
......Orda
Fictional novel based on a historical fact. And the historical fact must be something sort of a legend, like Atlantis. Nobody knows where it is, but it is mentioned in history. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I sent you a PM Orda. ~:) :book:
Well said. In fact, when sometimes they say "Chinese were conquered by the Mongolians", it is as laughable as saying something like "the Italians conquered the British" because the Romans dominated Britain, or that "the Germans slaughtered the Italians" because of Teutoburg Forest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Typical Western fantasy about "the East".Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
BTW, China is hardly "full-scale communism". Its economy nowadays is fully capitalist, after Deng's reforms. Politically, it might adhere to some old Communist ideals but it is far from being "fully communist".
...why?Quote:
Originally Posted by jurchen fury
The whole of the area known as China, where those who identify themselves as Chinese was, were conquered by Mongols at that stage.
Firstly, what is known as "China"? Today, the territory of the PRC borders Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, and Russia. Simply put, that territory is huge. In ancient times, all that territory was inhabitted by peoples that today the typical person would not typically consider "Chinese". What is Chinese? All the peoples of "China"? Then that would include Tibetans, Uygurs, Inner Mongolians, Manchurians, Yugurs, etc. and a whole ton of southern "minority" peoples such Hmong, Bai, Qiang (not the ancient Qiang), Yi, Miao, etc. By the time the "Mongols" conquered the entirety of the region that we today call "China", which was, in fact, never ruled under one single polity of Mongols, ie the Yuan dynasty did not rule the entire Xinjiang region for example, which was territory of the Jagatai Khaganate, then the Yuan conquest of the Song would be deemed "the Chinese conquered the Chinese". You say, why do you call the Yuan "Chinese" when in fact it was established by the Mongols? Well, if we go by your definition that "Chineseness" means the people claiming that they were "Chinese", Kubilai did claim that he was the rightful Son of Heaven and rightful successor of the ancient "legitimate" kings of old in the typical "Chinese" way, adopted "Yuan" as his dynasty and considered himself a ruler and representative of Zhongguo. Does that not make him "Chinese"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
You may say, well we aren't talking about today's China; we're talking about the China of the past. What was the "China" of the past, then? I ask, did nation-states even exist back then in "China"? Of course not. Modern nationalism has allowed the exact demarcation of political boundaries in modern times. In the past, such was NOT the case. The entirety of the region that we today call "China" was "divided" into many states whose people did not call themselves "Chinese" or under any single ethnic name; in modern Xinjiang/East Turkestan region, the Qara-Khitai/Western Liao, descendants of the Liao dynasty, was overlord and also of Ferghana and pretty much all of Transoxiana. Who were the Qara-Khitai? They were the Khitans. Who were the Khitans? Some scholars proposed that they spoke an archaic proto-Mongolic language? Does that make them Mongols? Certainly not, the Qara-Khitai was one of the many enemies of the Chinggisid Mongols and the Qara-Khitai evidently did not call themselves Mongols. Would you consider them "Chinese"? Furthermore, the "natives", at least as far back as history and archaeology can trace, of the region of East Turkestan/Xinjiang was first inhabitted by Indo-Iranians and mainly Tokharians, Indo-European peoples; today's Uygurs in the region contain their blood since they came in and mixed with them. In the past, the Huaxia peoples did not even conquer the region until Han times, and the culture of the Tarim and Xinjiang was quite distinct and unique from the culture of Zhongguo/Zhongyuan/Yellow River valley region. The Tarim peoples lived in the region that today we call "China"; are they "Chinese" in historical terms? They both lived in "China"; in historical terms, who then are the "Chinese"?
In north China, Manchuria, and even parts of southeastern Siberia that is now part of Russia, the Jin dynasty was overlord. The Jin dynasty was established by the Jurchids/Nuzhen people who spoke a proto-Tungusic language and they later gave the toughest resistance and were the most feared enemy of the Mongols. They claimed to have been the rightful successors of the ancients and claimed to represent Zhongguo, yet still some adhering pretty strongly to the Jurchen culture. Would you consider them "Chinese"? After all, their rulers claimed to be representatives of Zhongguo and their main territory was in "China". Are they now "Russians" too because some of their territories lay in southeast Siberia, ie the Amur river valley, and the such? In Tibet was various proto-Tibetan kingdoms all scattered and there was no "Tibetan nation"; yet they lived in the territory that is today "China". Would you call them "Chinese"?
Then comes the [Southern] Song. They claimed to be the legimitate successors of old and claimed to be the rightful rulers of Zhongguo and still today, unconsciously influenced by nationalist thinking of the Nationalists whose literature about China is widespread in Western works, many consider them "the rightful Chinese nation" during those times. Yet, they were located below the Yangzi delta and since the term "Zhongguo" was used in the past to refer to the Yellow River region where the ancient Shang and Zhou kings had their political center, the Song was clearly not within possession of those territories; those were under the Jin, who also claimed to be legitimate successors of Zhongguo. Culturally, they are the people whom today the typical average person would consider "Chinese", yet they only ruled merely a 4th or even less than that of what today we consider "China". Furthermore, the territory that they ruled, ie southern China, was, in ancient times, NOT considered "Zhongguo"/Zhongyuan; in ancient times, the aboriginals who lived in southern China were not considered "Chinese" (if "Huaxia" is to be taken for convenience to mean "Chinese") and were considered barbaric outsiders, term under as "Man" peoples, as opposed to the Huaxia peoples of Zhongguo. In fact, even during the Song times, the Song court still fought against the natives in bloody wars who opposed the Song regime; a large part of the original Huaxia population was under Jin rule, and many seemed to be content of the Jin claims to hegemony. You say, well, you're just Bullshitting; the Song are "Chinese". What makes them as such? Their false claims to rule Zhongguo? In fact, if we follow their claims to rule Zhongguo and that they were the rightful descendants of the Huaxia/Zhongguo people, and that their immediate "rightful" predecessors were the Tang and the such, then if we look at the territory that all previous dynasties in "China" ruled, why they never seem to match up to all of today's China territory. If so and if we go by the strict definition of "China" and "Chinese", why we could even say that "China was never unified under a single polity until the Qing dynasty and the PRC" which would sound quite ludicrous and ridiculous in historical terms.
To give another example, let us look at "the West" at the same way they look at "China". Sinai/Seres, names used by the Greeks to refer to the inhabitants of today's "China", who are a diverse bunch today. What was the Chinese equivalent? "Daddzin" being the ancient equivalent for the Romans, who are inhabitants of Italy. We will call all territory ruled by the Romans, who were inhabitants of today's Italy, as "Daddzin" but since the Romans were so strong in Europe, we will distort things and call all modern-day Europe (exact demarcations) as "Daddzin". If we go by that, why "Daddzin"/"Italy" has a long way to go before "the country is unified". After all, did not Italian nationalists in the 19th century claim Roman precedence and descent in their propaganda to form Italy as a country? Does that sound right? But you may say, "Daddzin" was only for the Romans and not for all Europe, why are you denying the existence of Celts in Gaul and Germanic tribes in central and eastern Europe? Do you now see the redundancy in referring to the inhabitants of "China" as "Chinese" in historical terms? It would seem to suggest that at that time, the whole region today that we call "China" was unified under a single polity and was conquered by the Mongols, which is false.
While I agree on the Chinese not being then what they are now -- the Mongols are most definitely the beginning of the nation of Mongolia. As such the Mongolians did indeed conquer what is now China, and at that time a collection of different peoples with different dialects and uses.
It seems to me that Edyzmedieval has come in for some harsh and quite unnecessary criticism. We all know what he means and these intricate accuracies have been used in a very negative way
......Orda
I'm afraid not. "Mongolia" was "unified" centuries before Chinggis proclaimed empirehood in 1206 and, contrary to popular notion, he was still fighting to control what today we would call "Mongolia" even post-1206 AD, despite the widespread false claims that he "united" Mongolia in 1206 AD. Do not the empires of the Xiongnu, Rouran, Turkut, and Uygurs come to mind? And their empires were powerful and contributed just as much to Mongolia as did the Mongols. The Mongol rise to power and its conquest of so much territories was opportunistic in lots of ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
The Mongol empire ceased to exist after 1259. If we pretend that all the khaganates that split up after Mongke died were united, then the "Mongols did conquer China", but the fact is that the Yuan dynasty which claimed to be a representative of Zhongguo never conquered all of what is today "China"; Xinjiang belonged to the Jagatai Khaganate and Tibet was merely a nominal vassal. However, the Yuan certainly did conquer Zhongguo, but Zhongguo back then was not synonymous to today's "China".Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
What I don't understand is why people in general, even among some scholars, love to continually refer to peoples, especially non-Western peoples, in historical terms with nationalistic names and connotations and look at the history through the lens of views distorted by modern nationalism. An example being while Chinggis' legacy certainly influenced and made an impact on the peoples of Mongolia that would later call themselves Mongols, to say that he "established the Mongol nation" seems rather awkward. Institutionalized nationalism in the modern sense and the associated polity of the modern nation-state was a political phenomenom of the 19th century. To say that Chinggis established "the Mongol nation" would be tantamount to saying that Chinggis had in his mind all the developed and centuries-old ideas of that of Johann Gottfried von Herder, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, or the earliest, of Machiavelli that would appear many centuries after his lifetime or that Chinggis had a sense of "volk" in him.
I ask, do we ever say anything like "Julius Caesar" united the Italian nation or Arminius was the saviour of Germany? Does it not sound awkward? Instead, in Western history, we go by the "proper" terms to call the peoples. We call Arminius' people the Cherusci, not "Germans" as if they were the Germans of today; we call Julius Caesar's peoples Romans/Romanii, not Italians. Why do we apply a double-standard and look at non-Western histories in a seemingly hidden nationalistic view? Yes, the Mongols are properly called Mongols because they called themselves "Yeke Mongghul Ulus"; why are the "Chinese" called "Chinese" then? Neither the Jin nor the Song called themselves "Chinese", in fact, neither the Song nor the Jin even called themselves "Han", AFAIK. Song called themselves Song people.
Sorry for hijacking the thread but I am wondering why people are making such claims, that's all.
Incorrect. You make a typical mistake on the Mongol empire of Chingis Khan, namely that the state he founded was equal to those that had come before him or those that came after him.Quote:
I'm afraid not. "Mongolia" was "unified" centuries before Chinggis proclaimed empirehood in 1206 and, contrary to popular notion, he was still fighting to control what today we would call "Mongolia" even post-1206 AD, despite the widespread false claims that he "united" Mongolia in 1206 AD. Do not the empires of the Xiongnu, Rouran, Turkut, and Uygurs come to mind? And their empires were powerful and contributed just as much to Mongolia as did the Mongols. The Mongol rise to power and its conquest of so much territories was opportunistic in lots of ways.
That is not true. What Chingis did was fashion a state and a people through ancient practices that had been present on the steppe for a very long time. His (in 1206) was not a collection of disparate tribes under the general hegemony of a single tribe, like the Xiongnu, Huns, Hephtalites and whatnot else before him, but a unified nation-state in as much the sense of the word as could ever be applied to that day and time.
He unified four tribes, namely the Mongols of Burkhan Khaldun (Chingis' own tribe), the Tatars in the East, the Naiman and the Kereyids. These formed the nucleus of the Mongol Empire and provided all the tumen that the 'Mongol World War' would need for the coming decades. This was no tribal confederacy -- this was a full-blown nation in the fullest sense of the word. These formed the Yeke Mongol Ulus, the Great Mongol Nation. Here lies the very foundation of the modern Mongol people, to be found in great detail in the Secret History.
No, the Mongol state was no mere steppe empire subject to the whims of the steppe. The very fact that it survived for so long as a conquering state, hailing from the steppe, anchored in nomadic tradition, under the pressure of familial strife within the Golden Family is a testimony to the strength of the system set up by Chingis Khan.
"First it is necessary to clarify the origins of the name "Mongol," about which opinions differ. According to Chinese annals, this was the name of Chingis Khan's tribe. But Isaac J. Schmidt, a nineteenth-century Moravian missionary who learned the Mongol language, argued that because Chingis Khan brought together different tribes, he had adopted the term Mongol to impart a sense of unity. Schmidt added that the etymology of Mongol signified "brave, fearless, excellent," a prideful appellation. A subsequent researcher, accepting Schmidt's supposition, has slightly modified his reading of "Mongol" to mean the "secure backbone" of Chingis Khan's power (i.e. his soldiers or people). *31 Such a reading, which seems plausible, betrays nineteenth- and twentieth-century notions of how "states" are held together -- i.e., as a "nation." The "Mongols" were everywhere far outnumbered by their subjects (one researcher estimates the thirteenth-century "Mongol" population at 700,000 -- at a time when Mongol-controlled China had at least 75 million people *32). Rather than a nation the Mongols were a ruling caste in the broader ulus. The Chingisid principle was the "unifier," not nationhood. Flowing out from the Chingisid principle was the military organization of society, or, to put it another way, the convertibility of civilian into military existence. That in turn was founded on a way of life, nomadism.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
.................
An imposition that expressed fear and condescension, "Tatar" as a name implied a sense of unity and cohesion within the Mongol realm. Juji's ulus was never a unified or integrated entity, however. Rather, it was made up of various semi-independent ulus led by Batu's brothers and other relatives. *37 At no point did all the parts unequivocally recognize the superordinate authority of Sarai, even if they sometimes stopped short of going to war. By the second half of the thirteenth century, internal wars became endemic. Tamerlane applied the coup de grace. Sometime thereafter, the ulus "fragmented," meaning that even nominal allegiance to a single khan ceased. This produced, in the east, various components independent of Sarai (and the object of contention among Kirghiz and Uzbegs), and in the west, several so-called "khanates" (Kazan, Astrakhan, and Crimea), as well as other offshoots, among which was the Siberian "khanate." The "fragments" had always been fragments; what changed was the appearance, and to an extent the practice, of allegiance to a single authority. "
Notes
31. See his notes to a translation of a seventeenth-century Mongol text, Schmidt, ed. and trans., Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen . . . (St. Petersburg, 1829); Koldonga Sodnom, "The Origin of the name 'Mongol'," The Mongolian Society Newsletter, no. 10, July 1991, pp. 39-41.
32. Allsen, "The Yuan Dynasty," p. 245. William McNeill suggests that the Mongol population was ravaged in the fourteenth century by the Black Death, for whose spread the Mongols were inadvertently responsible. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976).
33. M. G. Safargaliev, Raspad zolotoi ordy (Saransk [Mordovia], 1960), p. 35.
34. Vadim L. Egorov, Istoricheskaia geografiia zolotoi ordy v XIII-XIV vv. (Moscow, 1985), p. 156.
35. V. V. Bartol'd, "Istoriia turetsko-mongolskikh narodov," in Sochineniia, vol. 5 (Moscow, 1968), pp. 211-12; Fedorov-Davydov, Obshchestvennyi stroi zolotoi ordy, p. 173. See also J. Von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte der Goldener Horde in Kiptschak (Pesth, 1840), pp. 32-33.
36. The Europeans added an "r," forming "Tartars," a pun on the mythological Tartarus or River of Hell, whence the Tatars were disparingly said to have originated. Howorth, History of the Mongols, Part I, pp. 25-26.
37. As Pierre Goubert once said of the French nobility of the robe, "at the highest level, everybody is a relative." Goubert, L'Ancien regime: les pouvoirs (Paris, 1973), p. 52.
38. After 1480 embassies continued to be exchanged, but their purposes are unclear. The last khan of the Horde died in 1505. Halperin, Tatar Yoke, p. 150.
39. At first a "horde" for the Mongols did not mean a state, but the headquarters of the khan, i.e., something narrower than an ulus. Only in the fifteenth century did it come to mean the entire "state." See Vladimirtsov, Obshchestvennyi stroi, pp. 98-99; and Fedorov-Davydov, Obshchestvennyi stroi zolotoi ordy, pp. 43-51, 63-64, 112, 118-19. Von Hammer tried to explain the derivation of "horde" from hearth and yurt, so that an assemblage of yurts became known as an ordu or orda. Von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte, pp. 32-33.
http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/symp...7/Kotkin2.html
I doubt you actually read the Secret History. Otherwise, you would know that it was a history of the Mongol tribe and the empire that the Mongol tribe created, nothing in there even suggests "nationhood" or a "nation".Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I'm afraid that there were more than merely 4 tribes that Chinggis united. The 3 Merkit tribes of the Uduyit, Qaat, and Uwas roamed the Selenga, while the Durben Oirats/Oirads (who were later the main enemies of the Ming empire) roamed the area between Lake Khobsogol and Lake Baikal. The Jalairs dwelt near the junction of the Kilok and Selenga. The Solangs/Solons, Khongirads, and especially the Onguds (who defected from the Jin to Chinggis) of Inner Mongolia. Also, that he forced formed a "Mongol nation" ruling over all these tribes is simply false; some of these tribes didn't even speak a proto-Mongolic/Mongolic language, the Onguds, Naimans, and Keraits spoke Turkic languages while the Solangs/Solons were Tungusic. And when I was talking about the false claim of Chinggis "uniting the Mongol nation in 1206", I meant the fact that the Merkits were not subdued until 1216 by Jochi as told by Juwaini. What Chinggis essentially did was enforce the name Mongol, the name of the ruling tribe, as the name of the confederacy and the people its members, and "Mongol" being not at all any national or racial term but a purely political one; what he did, in fact, only mirrors what the past confederacies of the steppes did and what all polities generally did at the time in general. Nothing suggests a formation of a nation-state. It was no different from the common people of the Song calling themselves the Song people.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Xiongnu empire before loss of territory and subsequent break-up: c. 209 BC - c. 127 BC: 82 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Turkut empire before break-up: 552 AD - 582 AD: 30 years
Mongol empire before break-up: 1206 AD - 1259 AD: 53 years
Simply put, that the Mongol empire "survived for so long as a conquering state, hailing from the steppe, anchored in nomadic tradition, under the pressure of familial strife within the Golden Family" is nothing new and nothing special compared to other steppe empires. In fact, the Xiongnu empire outlasted the Mongol empire by several decades.
On the Pontic steppe the Khazar khaganate lasted a few centuries (and was eventually rolled up by the Mongols, actually). The Avars weren't all that short-lived either.
I think Wizard's arguments get a whole lot more palatable if in most instances you replace "nation" with "state". "Nation" in the premodern context is not the same as it is in the modern nation-state context, signifying more of a more or less loose culture-group sharing roughly similar customs, language and a vague identification with the own culture-group as reasonably distinct from another one. AFAIK it would be correct to say that Chinggis united several steppe nations into a state, but to say that he unified them into some sort of "super-nation" would be false.
States and realms, whatever exactly called (kingdom, empire, etc.), could well rule over numerous nations of people. Those people, however, would not think of themselves as part of some abstract "nation-state", but as parts of their own "nation" as well as subjects of the state or realm.
One of the more important duties of monarchs and similar personages, where such were present, in fact tended to specifically be to serve as some sort of unifying symbol for multitudous tribes, clans, families, customs, languages and sundry that otherwise had preciously little in common save the name of some distant overlord who in any case tended to be of rather secondary immediate concern compared to the local head honcho...
[sigh]
I'll not bother to argue any more, since this is degenrating into a pointless offtopic argument about techincalities, nationhood and other things. Also, I'm just a confused 15 year old who just can't bother with all that. I'll stick with China and Chinese, thanks, since we all spoke the same language (albeit with many dialects) and had lots of similar customs.
Anyway, another reminder:
OFFTOPIC!
Thanks :smartass2:
Whoa! The French aren't the dominant Europeans? (blink) I think the French missed a meeting. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This is a misleading statement as the Merkits had been defeated by Chingis Khan during the unification years and their leader, Toqtoa Beki, killed. Remnant groups under his son Qudu were pursued and defeated, outside of Mongolia in 1209 by Jebe and Subedei in Uighur domains on the Djem river. They were pursued into northern Kazakhstan and virtually destroyed but a timely intervention by Khwarazmian forces enabled the survivors to escape.These remnant groups resisted until 1218 under Qal Toqan.Quote:
the Merkits were not subdued until 1216 by Jochi
Similarly, resistance in Khwarazm was being put down during Ogodei's reign, but Khwarazm had been defeated by Chingis Khan. Small groups of resistance are precisely that, when a war is won there will inevitably be some pockets of resistance that require attention when the situation permits
.......Orda
Doesn't seem so far-fetched to me. The 'French' have fought with the 'Germans' many a time and speak a Germanically-influenced Latin language, and do not call themselves 'Germans', but they are ethnically German.Quote:
Originally Posted by jurchen fury