Set during the time of the Xiongnu Empire (c. 100 BC), it depicts the fictional Archug Khan's struggles to ensure his heir is legitimate and worthy of his throne.

The play is directed by Hero Baatar and produced by Amartuvshin Amundra and Myagmar Esunmunkh; the international production was assisted by playwright Timberlake Wertenbaker and historian John Man.

[2][3] In 1998, a tragedy known as Tamgagui Tur (English: State Without A Seal) was written by the Mongolian playwright Lkhagvasuren Bavuu [mn], who wanted to explore concepts of statehood and good rulership.

[12][5] Three days before their arrival in Hohhot, officials of the Chinese Communist Party informed the cast that they would perform in the much smaller Ordos City, and that any use of the word "khan" would have to be removed.

Finally, forty minutes before the production's opening on September 19, authorities announced that the performances were cancelled due to a "power failure"; the 130-strong theatrical company were then forcibly confined to their hotel rooms for six days before being expelled from China.

[11][3] The Chinese authorities likely feared that the play would encourage separatist movements among ethnic Mongolians in Inner Mongolia, and reacted with hostility, despite having previously approved the performances.

[3] Nick Barnes, a puppetry designer who previously worked on Life of Pi, collaborated with the show's producers to create a "Mongolian dragon-style puppet", much more mammal-like than the traditionally serpentine Chinese dragon.

The first Mongolian production to be performed internationally, The Mongol Khan has been described as a "cultural attack on the West" from Mongolia, in concert with other initiatives such as museum exhibitions and the promotion of rock band The Hu.

[1] Irene Lloyd of everything-theatre.co.uk also gave the show four stars, reserving especial praise for the costuming and choreography; she noted that these aspects and the "sheer spectacle" overcame issues with the "flaky" plot, lack of character development, and unusual acting style.

Caine complimented the production's extravagance and Ganbold's King Lear-like performance; Time Out's reviewer felt that the play's origin as a diplomatic mission compromised its quality, with a superficial plot, ponderous pacing, and misplaced excess somewhat rescued by "beautiful stage images and a great battle scene at the end".

[18][19] In a one-star review, Nick Curtis of The Evening Standard criticised the woodenness of the lead actors and the unsuitability of the English translation, characterising the "hilariously awful" play as an unintelligent, laborious psychodrama.

[20] Marianka Swain of The Telegraph was similarly negative, giving the "epically boring" play two stars out of five; like Curtis, she criticised the mishitting dialogue, the "glacial pace", and the "thunderously melodramatic" acting.