Jump to content

Talk:Silk Road

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efrobe8700 (article contribs).

The Silk Road

[edit]

The Silk Road goes from Syria to Xi'an. This was found by Shanjeev. Most of the Silk Road is in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.139.81 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pls 2405:201:E01C:629F:3DC7:B574:5E69:E358 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
silk route is standard by India 27.63.26.110 (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Don't most maps and sources include North Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Arabia and East Africa, or are you talking about a part of the Silk Road? Cupcake547 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol invasions

[edit]

"Genghis Khan" and his warriors mainly from the "Vajrayana Buddhism" tradition diminished the entire trade routes.

These invasions allowed for the "Age of Exploration" to be a success.

"Mongol Horde" was the greatest menace to the Silk Road repeatedly and the inhabitants couldn't protect their trade routes. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol influence

[edit]

Genghis Khan (Temujin), his forces captured then ruled the territory along the Silk Road.

(Note: Mongolia is landlocked, and yearn to be noticed in the Medieval world).

What's very interesting about the actual warriors of the "Mongol Horde" under the command of Genghis Khan is that they were adherents of Vajrayana Buddhism. Evidence proves that they owned Horses, and Yak. they also had close links to "Tibetan Buddhist" tradition of which we have now the country of "Bhutan".

The Mongol were invader upon the Silk Road on a massive scale; after which came the "Gunpowder Empires" and "European Mercantile Companies". 137.59.221.36 (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precursors: Jade trade

[edit]

I was looking for some info on the neolithic jade trade route along the lines of what later became the silk road, but couldn't find anything here or in the Steppe Route article. I think it should be addded eventually, seeing that it went on for quite some time and neolithic axes made from Chinese Jade were even found in the Iberian peninsula, suggesting an at least somewhat stable and organised trade up to Europe. --2001:16B8:6725:A300:E828:38E6:8634:496F (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Name; and contested significance," the article says, "The term 'Jade Road' would have been more appropriate than 'Silk Road' had it not been for the far larger and geographically wider nature of the silk trade; the term is in current use in China." Does this mean that the term "Jade Road" or "Silk Road" is in use today in China?

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

[edit]

DOGE 96.86.97.49 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —GMX(on the go!) 18:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

[edit]

The sentence presented below is grammatically incorrect, as it should say something like "which more accurately describes the web of land and sea routes between East and Southeast Asia, ..."

First coined in the late 19th century, the name "Silk Road" has fallen into disuse among some modern historians in favor of Silk Routes, which more accurately describes the intricate web of land and sea East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, the Middle East, East Africa and Europe. Anybody111 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

[edit]
Kassi763 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I would like to add something to the collapse of the old silk road:

The collapse of the Silk Road began with the Song Dynasty and was fueled by increased Chinese maritime trade, the emergence of new markets in Southeast Asia, and the high tariff demands of the Arabs. Another important reason was the drying up of glacier-fed rivers around the Taklamakan and Lop deserts in the central part of the Silk Road.

The sea route eliminated the dangers of the long voyage and the tributes to the middlemen. The Silk Road finally lost its importance in the course of the worldwide expansion of the European maritime powers in the early modern period. Trade across the Silk Road was replaced by ships, with Chinese merchants traveling as far as India and Arabia in their junks. Europeans had been severely restricted in their China trade since the Song period. Therefore, during the sea expeditions, one of their main goals was to recover the fabled Cathay (China) by sea. It was not until 1514 that the Portuguese reached China and quickly established a lively trade, later occupied by Spain. From the middle of the 16th century, the Middle Kingdom was the main beneficiary of the European colonies in the New World. Much of the precious metal mined there was shipped to China to purchase goods for Europe. In time, ships of the trading companies replaced the Silk Road as a link to East Asia to procure luxury goods and artifacts from there for the European nobility.

Cities along the Silk Road fell into disrepair, and formerly flourishing cultures disappeared in a long process and were forgotten for centuries.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

[edit]
169.244.203.1 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Wiki page

[edit]

The collapse of the Silk Road began with the Song Dynasty and was fueled by increased Chinese maritime trade, the emergence of new markets in Southeast Asia, and the high tariff demands of the Arabs. Another important reason was the drying up of glacier-fed rivers around the Taklamakan and Lop deserts in the central part of the Silk Road. The sea route eliminated the dangers of the long voyage and the tributes to the middlemen. The Silk Road finally lost its importance in the course of the worldwide expansion of the European maritime powers in the early modern period. Trade across the Silk Road was replaced by ships, with Chinese merchants traveling as far as India and Arabia in their junks. Europeans had been severely restricted in their China trade since the Song period. Therefore, during the sea expeditions, one of their main goals was to recover the fabled Cathay (China) by sea. It was not until 1514 that the Portuguese reached China and quickly established a lively trade, later occupied by Spain. From the middle of the 16th century, the Middle Kingdom was the main beneficiary of the European colonies in the New World. Much of the precious metal mined there was shipped to China to purchase goods for Europe. In time, ships of the trading companies replaced the Silk Road as a link to East Asia to procure luxury goods and artifacts from there for the European nobility. Cities along the Silk Road fell into disrepair, and formerly flourishing cultures disappeared in a long process and were forgotten for centuries. 8.47.97.200 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should note here that I intend to revamp the article as part of the Core Contest 2023; the article is in pretty mediocre shape, and the sourcing is rather terrible. Hopefully, I can get it to GA or higher standard by the end of May. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't happen. Maybe next year. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

[edit]
67.6.188.24 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WanderingMorpheme 01:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

[edit]
2001:1670:18:8361:C451:87:733A:E35A (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would wish to have edit access so I can add the edit for decline and collapsing of the silk road

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Shadow311 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map

[edit]

is unuseful, it needs country names, especially considering it uses modern day borders. 2407:7000:986C:1300:6469:6E4B:3F24:86A0 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Route Section Map Error

[edit]

The northern route figure specifies the Persian gulf in the wrong location--it's placed where the Red Sea is and needs to be on the other side of the Arabian penninsula. 172.114.43.221 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An academic myth ?

[edit]

There's a strong piece (archive) by Ferdinand Mount in this month's London Review of Books (September 12, 2024) discussing William Dalrymple's new book The Golden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World, and also including a long quote from Warwick Ball's Rome in the East (1999).

The thrust of the piece is that the Silk Road is an "academic myth" that has been promulgated since the late 19th century (and no earlier); that in reality it was marginal and even minimal at least until the time of the Mongol conquests; and that before this, Europe's overwhelmingly important trade connection (eg in the time of the Roman empire) was between Rome and India by sea, not China by land -- that right up until the 14th century trade contacts with China were second-hand and minimal.

I see that there is a paragraph on this (in the section "Name" (permalink)), but the article should probably present and discuss mroe of this at greater length with more prominence: it is not just the name that is being criticised. Jheald (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the subheading to "Name; and contested significance". But probably more should be done. Jheald (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]