From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Obviously a reference to Gengis Khan and how his death resulted in the separation of the conquered teritories amongst his 4 sons.

Are we sure there has only been one Khan-Ur (not including pretenders to the title)? Seems odd that the charr would care that much about a single individual. --Will Greyhawk 18:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Double checked GW2Wiki's article about the Khan-Ur. That article implies that there was a line of Khan-Urs that lasted 'til the one that was assassinated during Ascalon's founding. With that said, I leave it to better contributors to decided how to adjust this article.--Will Greyhawk 19:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Where did you ever get that there was only one Khan-Ur? "Although some Charr have subsequently claimed the title, none have been able to hold it for more than a few years." has been there for some time. Konig/talk 20:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The wording seems to imply that there have only been pretenders following the first, and also says that the first was also the one that was assassinated prior to Ascalon's founding. Other articles seem to imply otherwise (at least from what I remember, might need to re-read The Movement and the Eco-ology of the Charr again).--Will Greyhawk 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
How does not being able to hold the throne for a few years mean they were pretends? And how on Earth did you get that the first Khan-Ur was killed before Ascalon's founding when the article says after Ascalon was founded in 100BE? Konig/talk 00:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, the "before" and not "after" Ascalon's founding was a mistake on my part, but it really isn't my point. And I dunno, what else would you call rulers that "Claim the title, but only ruled for a few years"? "To this day, no one knows who murdered the last Khan-Ur, nor if some legion had been behind the assassination or if was the humans or their powerful gods." "There has been no true Khan-Ur for over a thousand years. Although the position has been claimed several times, no Charr has been able to hold the crown for more than a handful of years, certainly not enough time to solidify the title or create a new lineage. Each one has been overthrown shortly after making the daring claim; the Charr accept no ruler who is not strong enough to defend his throne." Both of these quotes are from the Ecology of the Charr. That sorta implies that those that followed are, well, pretenders. And the use of the word LAST aslo implies that there had been a first, and possible others that ruled inbetween. Also, its mentioned in different articles, including the Ecology, that during the rein of the Khan-Ur the charr were at war with the Forgotten. It goes on to say, that ' Long after the Forgotten stopped threatening the Charr, the humans appeared....'. This seems to imply that the time between the Forgotten and the human invasion was decades, if not centuries. I am willing to admit its a tad tenuous since an actual messurment of time isn't mentioned, but it still seems to to point in favor of the first Khan-Ur and the assassinated Kahn-Ur as being two separted Charr.--Will Greyhawk 19:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I wanted to give this a proper response so I didn't respond until I got to a computer. I hope you don't mind, but I used the quote template when you quoted stuff, as they ran into each other as they were.
Firstly, just because someone couldn't hold the crown for years doesn't make them a pretender - the term "real Khan-Ur" here isn't used in the sense of a pretender but that they were not worthy of the title - they could not hold up to the ancestor. This is confirmed in gw2:The Legions of the Charr blog post (simply linking gw2w verbatim transcript) which states "A few charr have tried to claim the title since then, but none has truly united the legions under one throne."
Secondly, it was one Khan-Ur - the first Khan-Ur was assassinated. The proof in this is the fact that the High Legions were formed with the death of the first Khan-Ur, and the Ecology of the Charr, right after your first quote, states "With his death, however, the legions once more fell into conflict and chaos. Records of this portion of Charr history are scattered, much like the legions themselves. In the wake over the power void, the children of the Khan-Ur squabbled among themselves and ultimately divided the empire in their futile attempts to claim the title of Khan-Ur and regain control of all the Charr legions." Along with a sentence in the first paragraph of "The Legions" section "Each proclaims its right to the throne, tracing its members’ lineage back to one of the children of the original Khan-Ur."
If I recall correctly, this second point was also explicitly stated in an interview. It is not hard to believe, to be honest - The Ecology of the Charr doesn't say how long it was between the Khan-Ur's rise and the coming of the humans, it merely states that he fought both forgotten and humans and was killed after being pushed back - this means that he was alive before, during, and shortly after 100 BE, and nothing else. A long time is far too subjective - and the Khan-Ur could of been a stubborn old man by the time he died (like [[someone else we know). Konig/talk 00:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag[edit]

Can somebody please take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Khan-Ur and resolve the mainspace links - specifically I don't know what to do with Main Page/featured article + the Charr article, since their lead paragraphs will be affected. -Chieftain Alex 06:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)