It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
The sun only provided the fuel's origin the chemical alteration of this material is caused by pressure, heat and millions of years. Though fossil fuel is scientifically photosynthesis based the alteration is what makes it a fossil fuel. Hench the name fossil.
Judging by the amount of lands of that Mongols conquered, lack of cars wouldn't have stopped them from conquering Europe. Mongol empire at its peak spanned over 24 million square kilometres of land while To put that into perspective, the Roman Empire at its peak only spanned over 5 million square kilometres of land
Given their vicious inhumane barbarity and brutality, I'm sure if his tomb was found, millions of people would want to destroy it and exhume his body and smash it into smithereens.
What they did to Iran (formerly Persia) and the middle east can not be forgotten. Killing a mother while she was breastfeeding her infant baby? Even animals don't do that. I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
Don't look too closely into your own ancestry; the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history.
> the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history.
I think you're forgetting about the fact that in all human history, Genghis stands out as one of the cruelest and most violent rulers. As far as I know, Iranians (Persians) never did the same thing to other nations, not even for revenge. I guess that's the main reason saving Iranians from "existential despair".
How do you feel about this ancient Persian torture method?
"The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within the interior space of two narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks) joined together one on top of the other with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey, and more honey would be poured on the victim to attract insects, with special attention devoted to the eyes, ears, mouth, face, genitals, and anus. In some cases, the executioner would mix milk and honey and pour that mixture all over the victim. The victim would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects which would eat and breed within the victim's exposed flesh, which—pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects—became increasingly gangrenous. The individual would lie naked, covered from head to toe in milk, honey, and his own feces. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that fatal dehydration or starvation did not occur. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation, and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.[1]."
Equally, how do you feel about killing a servants son and having him eat him because he had refused to kill a child?
"Herodotus accounts for the turn of Harpagus' support to a version of the cannibal feast of Thyestes.[1] He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane, would give birth to a king who would overthrow him, ordered Harpagus to expose the child at birth. Harpagus, reluctant to spill his own royal blood, gave the child (Cyrus) to a shepherd named Mitradates,[2] who raised him as his own son.
Ten years later, when Cyrus was discovered alive, Astyages cruelly punished Harpagus by killing Harpagus' only son and feeding him to the courtier during a banquet. It is said that Harpagus did not react during the banquet, other than to gather the pieces of his son and remove them for burial."
So you made a fake account just to come here and rant about something unrelated to the main topic?
Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
> He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane ...
Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
> So you made a fake account just to come here and rant about something unrelated to the main topic?
I don't understand how it's a fake account. Would you mind keeping the discussion on a civil level?
> Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
Yes, the Persians and the Greeks were at war and enemies. In fact, that was part of my point. The portrayal you have of Genghis Khan comes from his enemies too.
> Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I understand how if you're not familiar with Herodotus it can be hard to believe anything he says since he does enjoy to add details to personify stories. That is no reason to discount everything he says though, most of ancient written history is embellished. There's a lot of work on the reliabiliy of his texts if you're interested.
> I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
Uh...absolutely? There is nothing uncivil about in and it's literally on the same topic that your post was about.
It's pretty interesting, really. Mammals in general have a strong instinct to recognize and protect the traits that characterize infants (disproportionately large head/eyes, high-pitched vocalization, etc), which is where we get our concept of "cute", and why cats and dogs will sometimes be extremely tolerant and protective of human children who are much bigger than they are. Occasionally, the instinct is a little too strong and overrides survival traits like "eat that delicious baby." It happens often enough to be well-documented, but it's really not the norm.
This comment is hilarious and I would make a joke about how bizarre it is to be so offended by something that happened ca 800 years ago but apparently that's too soon, too soon.
> Killing a mother while she was breastfeeding her infant baby? Even animals don't do that.
Of course they do. A bunch of helpless babies and a mother distracted by them would be a windfall for any predator.
> I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
There is not a human being alive who doesn't have terrible atrocity in their bloodline. Genghis Khan isn't more evil just because he happened to be more successful than most.
Genghis Khan is simply Mongolia’s greatest hero. The West recalls only what he conquered, but Mongolians remember what he created. His empire connected East and West, allowing the Silk Road to flourish. His rule enshrined the concepts of diplomatic immunity and religious freedom. He established a reliable postal service and the use of paper money. Genghis Khan didn’t just conquer the world, he civilised it.
Dan Carlin is an entertainer rather than a historian. So please take anything he says with a grain of salt.
> It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
It was dumb luck that the first major european campaign ended. But it was also lots of diplomatic negotiations and the Pope's willingness to "humble" himself before the "Great Khans". Because of the christian tradition of "Render under Caesar" set by jesus himself in the new testament, Popes and christian leaders were willing to "bow before the khan". Whereas other leaders ( muslim, chinese, russians, etc ) refused for variety of reasons and were conquered. Also, the pope had the benefit of seeing mongols crush one empire after another by the time the mongols reached europe, so they weren't blinded by hubris like the Khwarazmian empire. For example, when the mongols sent a delegation to the shah of khwarazmian, he had them tortured and killed and sent a humiliated surviving diplomat back to genghis khan. The pope knew about what happened to the shah and the khwarazmian empire and he knew to act accordingly. When the mongols sent a delegate to Rome, he didn't have them tortured and killed. Instead the pope sent out his own delegation to develop political ties. Even trying to form alliances with the mongols against the muslims.
The history of western civilization changed completely because the "humility" of the pope and the catholic church. It was the friendly relations with the mongol empire which gave italians lucrative trade relations within the mongol empire which led to the rise of the medicis, the italian renaissance and a rebirth of europe from the doldrums of the dark ages.
Arguably one of the most important events in human history is the many trade delegations the pope sent to mongolia to get favorable trade deals with the mongol empire. Without that, we don't have italian renaissance. And the collapse of the mongol empire and especially the golden horde which led to a completely severing of links between italy/europe to the rest of asia is what led to the age of european exploration. It was the collapse of the overland trade routes protected by the mongols that led to europe's search for a sea route. It isn't a coincidence that columbus set for sail a few years after Ivan the Great defeated the golden horde in 1480 and ended mongol rule over the rus.
Surely you mean western shores of Portugal, or the Iberian Peninsula? Portugal was founded in 1139, Spain as a single entity, and not a collection of Kingdoms was founded in 1469, 200 and so years after Genghis Khan (1162-1227).
IIRC, “Spain”, like “Germany”, was a geographic name long before it identified a particular polity.
In any case it's a geographic name coextensive with a modern polity now, and a modern speaker using it to identify a geographic location even for events that predate the modern polity is normal and clear.
Hispania != Spain. In any case, the westernmost region on the Iberian peninsula was and still is occupied by a country then known and still known as Portugal.
That's a pretty bad answer. Look at the conquest of Southern Song - the Mongols were operating far from the steppe, they were up against a large number of fortified positions, and in terrain that wasn't well suited for them (Southern China is not "open country", like Tim ONeill claims). It also didn't fall quickly (the way he says the centralized polities fell), it took decades of devastating war.
It's true that people often exaggerate how close Western Europe came to being conquered by the Mongols. But people arguing against that idea often throw around just as much bad history.
The Mongols made no gains in Southern Song until the Song court was foolish enough to punish one of their generals for holding off the Mongol invasion, at which point he defected to the Mongols. Even then, it still took a years-long siege by a general who knew all of the weaknesses in the Song defenses to take the city.
In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol invasion...it had 3. This meant the Mongols could capture the kingdom with a handful of simultaneous sustained sieges. In contrast, at this time, there were hundreds of castles in Europe, most built to withstand years-long sieges, and most within reinforcement range of their neighbors.
Furthermore, Western Europe back then was heavily forested. Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films. Traversing this wilderness would have been possible but difficult for small groups. For an army of mounted horsemen, it would have been extremely difficult. For an army of horsemen each requiring multiple horses, it would have been effectively impossible.
Combining the lack of grazing pasture for the horses, the wild forests preventing the Mongols from utilizing their hit-and-run tactics to any meaningful effect, and the necessity to carry out thousands of sieges and blockades against a well-fed and entrenched enemy, the Mongols had no chance to invade Western Europe.
> In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol invasion...it had 3.
I think that's incredibly misleading. The Song dynasty had numerous impressive city walls, forts, fortified passes, etc. There's no reason to act as if the only worthwhile fortified structures are castles (should we overlook the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople because they weren't castles?).
> Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films.
Again, this is very misleading. We're talking about a period after most of the Great Clearance. It's also true that many of the woods that were left were maintained woods.
Castles create a different strategy. A walled city is an egg, you have a lot of area to attack and when you get through there's a treasure inside. A castle is a pebble. It can be crushed, but you have to put in a lot of effort, you get nothing from it and there's a thousand more around you.
IIRC the Song also didn't have great castle making technology. Didn't they do earthen fortifications reinforced with clay bricks? And weren't the walled cities typically sitting on plains, possibly without a moat? That's a lot easier to attack than a composite stone wall sitting on a mountain.
You think that some Song generals wouldn't have defected to the Mongols at some point? The Mongols were famous for their spy craft and intelligence service, and for being able to convert key enemies when necessary.
And calling their tactics "hit and run" is a huge oversimplification, as is the rest of your points.
I'm not really sure that Europe was that helpless. IIRC the mongols basically couldn't take European castles. As you go further west in the 1200s you start seeing higher population densities. Poland, Germany and France are all roughly the same size and in this time frame IIRC Poland had 2 million people, Germany had 10 million and France had 20 million.
With the higher density came a higher density of fortifications. With a low density the Mongols could just bypass anything they couldn't take, but with enough of these forts an invading army opened itself to attack from every direction.
The newer European fortresses were also a lot harder for the Mongols to attack. IIRC the Hungarians had 5 in the region the Mongols attacked and none of them fell. Germany had thousands, and they were generally higher quality. Even if they could get inside the city it was attackers in leather against defenders in plate or chain. The Mongols had no real advantages in a siege situation since they couldn't bring their coordination or mobility to bear.
Modern history gives significantly lower estimates for those numbers, it was likely less than 2 million people in France. At the same time the Mongol's army was probably about 20k people, not 500k as claimed.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of post plague Europe? I just double checked wikipedia and it basically says between 13-20 million people in France depending on what you consider to be "France" (modern borders are closer to 20 million).
The mongols adopted the best tools of their enemies, they had a complete army that included siege weapons built by chinese siege engineers. They were the first to use artillery in Europe. They conquered far larger and better fortified chinese cities than any piddling castles in Europe.
And you can't trap the mongols, their mobile army lived off the land and moved far too fast with a lethality that european armies couldn't deal with.
The death of Chenggis Khan was the only thing that saved Europe from a massacre and enslavement by the mongols.
The Mongols were having trouble in Europe before Chenggis died and there is evidence that they turned around before they heard of his death.
It's easy to mythologize the Mongols, but when they tried to move on castle builders in the levant and Eastern Europe they got their asses kicked. Repeatedly.
There was a 20 year delay that allowed a massive preparation, including big changes in tactics and strategy by the Europeans. If Chenggis had lived, they wouldn't have had but a fraction of that time.
"Preparation" in this case meant going from 1% as prepared as Western Europe to 5% as prepared as Western Europe. Remember, when the Mongols attacked Vienna at the same time they were beating the Polish and Hungarians they were defeated in open battle which was their strong suit.
Contrast the Mongolians celebration of their imperial glory with western guilt about imperialism. Why is one OK and the other not? Is it just a matter of timescale or perspective? It makes me think about how the Georgians celebrate Stalin, whilst everyone else seems to consider him a butcher.
They had different notions about equality. I'm not sure about the mongols, but many civilizations believed that their king was chosen by God, and his moral directive was to conquer all the earth.
It's probably because of the Age of Enlightenment in the west that did a thorough self evaluation over a few centuries. That type of self evaluation is rare in other cultures.
As someone from the middle East (with a high chance of having Mongol blood), it does annoy me how much people are enamoured by Genghis khan. The guy was a brutal imperialist.
I was international student and met many at my university. It was mind boggling how almost everyone would celebrate their cultures' conquests & wars and at the same time call Western conquests evil and the worst thing.
It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
I am assuming the people who celebrate the wars of kings in their lands are more than 500 years old while Western colonialism sort of stopped just 50-100 years back.
So the Western atrocities are still fresh in the mind while people forget the 1000 year old atrocities.
For example, the crimes of the British during the Mau Mau rebellion are within living memory. And, importantly, the current British government is a successor to the one that oversaw those crimes.
And conversely several African states have governments that either took part in the fight against colonialism personally, or are from families where family members fought the colonial powers.
E.g. when looking at Robert Mugabe's hostility towards Britain in particular (without wanting to justify his authoritarianism and violence) it is worth considering that he fought for independence, and though Britain as responsible for allowing Rhodesia to happen.
Colonizations, almost all of my friends from international communities had their countries colonized by Western powers. A lot of them still blame colonization for current problems in their countries.
To take a particularly bad one that relatively frequently comes up, consider the Congo Free State [1], which is considered bad enough by some still that a statue showing king Leopold II being celebrated by the Congolese was vandalised by someone chopping off the hand of one of the African characters to symbolise the history of chopping off the hands of those who refused to work the rubber plantations.
Are you forgetting about modern western imperialist adventures such as Iraq and Afghanistan, entering their 16th year? Where millions of civilians were and are still being killed, injured, displaced, tortured and all around stomped on in terms of human rights, led by some of the most powerful western nations in the world. These wars were cheered on by a good chunk of US and UK citizenry for years before they conveniently faded into the background.
That's even ignoring the direct relations of these invasions to the more recent conflicts in Libya, Syria, and ISIS, the boogeymen armed and created by the same people who started these wars not long ago.
> That type of self evaluation is rare in other cultures.
It is rare everywhere. Even in the west.
We celebrate george washington and have statues, schools, etc named after racist slavers and genocidal murderers.
> It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
Really? You think most of us think western imperialism was horrible? We may give lip service to it, but we celebrate our heritage. From ancient greece to rome to the british empire to now our american empire, we celebrate our conquests and victories.
The standard trope amongst the british is that the british empire brought civilization and democracy to most of the world. Our justification for the american empire is that we bring "freedom" to the world.
>It's probably because of the Age of Enlightenment in the west that did a thorough self evaluation over a few centuries.
I'm not sure what a "thorough self evaluation" would actually mean. I don't think that's even remotely feasible, given the immense scope of the subject matter. What has happened is that certain elements within western civilization have focused their efforts on criticizing western civilization, some in good faith and some not, and the rest of western civilization has allowed them to do so. That is the part that is rare, just like suicide, and for the same reason.
I think the case for western imperial guilt is more than a little overstated -- but the main difference is that we (assuming you're a fellow westerner) live in a direct continuation of empire, and enjoy the spoils from it, in a way neither Mongolians or Georgians can be said to do.
So then whether or not you are allowed to celebrate your lost empire depends on whether you are still experiencing the benefits of it, and not how terrible that empire was? Seems a strange way to judge things.
People still routinely admire the military prowess of western imperialist leaders like Caesar and Alexander ("the Great") and more recent ones like Napoleon without endorsing their reasons for going to war.
It's more about whether the ideology of that empire infiltrated your subsequent historical narrative.
Western culture is built on the results of the Greek and Roman empires, the Catholic Church, the English (and French/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch) empire, and the American conquest.
No one is the villain of their own story. And these empires - not the Persian, Ottoman, Germanic, native American, Russian, and other empires which opposed them, or the Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolian, and other empires which didn't feature in their storyline - wrote the storybooks.
It's the natural way to judge things - perhaps not the most accurate or honest, but those take a lot of effort to establish.
What do you mean that it's okay? Why does anyone say it's okay? It's something that happened 800 years ago, and Mongolia is a currently a small country threatening to no one. It would be less okay if they started mobilizing their army and threatening their neighbors while celebrating their imperial past.
There's also no western guilt about Alexander the Great, Caesar and other Romans, north Germanic raids (Vikings), eastern Germanic conquests (goths, vandals, etc.)
The Belgian Congo was a miserable episode in history by all accounts - often considered one of most terrible examples of recent colonialism. Something to bear in mind next time next time you are chomping down on a delicious Belgian chocolate what with that industry being a direct legacy of colonialism.
I will definitely keep this in mind and flog myself on a bimonthly schedule.
Luckily I havent seen any Belgian chocolate on sale here yet, ha. Hopefully the Swiss have stayed isolated long enough to not add in any more European guilt!
There's a direct relationship between present dominance/power and the amount of guilt you're supposed to feel. That's basically how it works.
Spain and Portugal are no longer powerful nations, in either a military or economic sense (Portugal ranks behind Slovenia in GDP per capita for example).
If Italy were a super power today, they would be endlessly targeted for derision for their past connections to empire/s. It would be proclaimed that their present status was a direct result of abuses from the past and that they should feel guilty about it all.
Britain lost its empire and has persistently reduced in importance the last century, so they're rarely targeted for guilt regarding that (save for a few exceptions). It's a chapter in history books now, like so many former empires.
The Ottoman Empire? Long gone. Turkey isn't a major world power. As such, most of the world simply doesn't care about its terrible past.
This is true; yet on the flip-side there is also a lot to be proud of.
People tend to forget all the good.
The same can be said for the Romans. They slaughtered and enslaved the native peoples of the Iberian peninsula, yet they also built roads, aqueducts, introduced new farming techniques and education.
Should present-day italians feel ashamed of what their ancestors did? I don't think so.
The "what about all the good Hitler did?" argument. Doing those things did not require the slaughtering and enslavement, there's no balancing act that makes those acceptable.
Yeah, but you have the luxury of judging the actions of people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago from the comfort of your living-room recliner.
According to your extremist logic, the following were all pretty much Hitler as well:
- Mayans
- Egyptians
- Chinese
- Mongols
- Romans
- Macedonians
- Persians
- Russians
- Omayyad Caliphate
- Ottoman Empire/Turkey
- All african tribes who sold their brethren into slavery
- French
- British
- Portuguese
- Spanish
- Dutch
- Germans
Pretty much any civilization that has ever existed has committed atrocities.
What they did was brutal and there's no excusing this, but they also did good. You can deny it all you want but this is a fact.
>Yeah, but you have the luxury of judging the actions of people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago from the comfort of your living-room recliner.
Yes. They have the luxury of my judgements having absolutely no impact on them. As their good acts do not compensate for the atrocities, we should be ashamed of what they've done, and try not to do the same in the future. Remembering the good without keeping that in mind leads to the same tragedies playing out again.
I've never personally felt guilty for imperialism, but if I were to visit my brother I would meet a number of native Americans who's ancestors were beat down by people of the same race as my ancestors. Those natives still suffer the consequences of that. The Mongols are now more at the mercy of the Chinese rather than visa-versa. It's less crass for them to reminisce about there glory days and triumphs against a people who now dominate them, than it would be for white men in my country to reminisce about conquering a people whom they still dominate.
That said, there are still people pissed about the Mongol conquest. Genghis Khan is still hated in China, and central Asia and especially the middle east.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Genghis Khan is hated in China. As far as I know, he is considered one of the national heroes, I guess partly because China controls Inner Mongolia.
For instance, in popular culture, such as Jinyong's Legend of the Condor Heroes, Genghis Khan is a secondary character, depicted as a smart leader who was shaped by the treachery of his own sworn brother and by the oppression of the Jurchen Jin dynasty. The reader is lead to empathize with Genghis Khan, through the eyes of Guojing, the patriotic Sung protagonist, despite the resentment that exists between him and Genghis Khan, the Mongolian leader who has decided to turn on their Sung dynasty allies.
I know Jinyong's work is fiction with a historical background, but I believe his work is a good indication of Chinese sentiments towards historical events and figures.
I had read that there was resentment against the Mongols and Yuan dynasty in China due to the destruction they caused. It could be that my information is not so current. I'm willing to be wrong on that point.
As a Chinese I don't think he is national hero at all, and most people I know don't regard him as hero, I'm not sure where did you get that idea. He was a conqueror for sure.
Chinese suffered as much as other conquered lands, to say to least. The Yuan dynasty lasted less than a century, one of the shortest period in the history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Mixed
Even in the fiction `Jingyong`'s book, I wouldn't say the author had a bias favor Khan, I guess smart readers could read it from the book. The Khan would massacre every one if the be-seiged refuse to surrender, and they usually would drive herds of surrendered to the gate. Not to mention in the book the Kan is Kublai instead, and he is noway the secondary character.
"Not to mention in the book the Kan is Kublai instead"
That's in the sequel, The Return of the Condor Heroes, which depicts events after the death of Genghis Khan.
And since you mention Kublai, Genghis Khan only started the conquest of China. He only managed to conquer West Xia before his death. The rest of the conquest of China was done by his descendants, and so I believe most of the atrocities towards the Chinese occurred then.
Genghis Khan is a conflicting character in China, if at the time when Genghis Khan invaded China, he was likely hated. Nowadays he is like Alexander the Great to the Greeks, despite being a conqueror he is more respected.
To be fair there are very few countries, tribes or people that aren't "suffering the consequences" over clashes with their neighbors over the last few hundred years.
> Contrast the Mongolians celebration of their imperial glory with western guilt about imperialism.
The mongols didn't exterminate the people they conquered and settle the land with mongols.
> Why is one OK and the other not?
For the same reason why nazi germany was exceptionally evil.
The mongols weren't good. They were empire builders. But they didn't set out to exterminate people.
The difference between western imperialism and mongol imperialism is that russians, chinese, koreans, turks, central asians, arabs, persians, siberians, etc still exist.
Now compare that to what happened to the native americas, inuits, aborigines, etc.
> The mongols weren't good. They were empire builders. But they didn't set out to exterminate people.
Extermination wasn't their goal, but IIRC they had a policy of exterminating any who resisted them, as a lesson to others. That wasn't standard policy for all empire builders.
Western guilt about imperialism is not even a mainstream thing. The U.S. media and pundits routinely celebrate American imperialism without calling it so. There are U.S. military bases all over the world, and not many feel any guilt about it.
Columbus Day is still very much a thing and Queen Elizabeth is still very much of a celebrated Queen of England and a source of pride. Many more examples abound.
Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
It doesn't, I was just pointing out that if atrocious military actions means that you can't say anything good about a person there are a lot of leaders included in that.
>Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies.
Merv has surrendered, but the war wasn't over. It wasn't just mindless killing, it was for a military objective.
>Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
You don't target enemy military assets with fire bombings.
>It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
The motivation for it wasn't to kill civilians, it was always for military reasons.
Tokyo bombings killed around 200,000 people, a small fraction of the 6 million who lived there. Genghis Khan would have had his soldiers kill most, if not all of the 6 million.
You mean like Roosevelt had his soliders kill most, if not all citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The objective of the two things is remarkably similar by the way - to demonstrate your might and make the enemy surrender out of fear.
"To each [Mongol soldier] was allotted the execution of
three or four hundred Persians. So many had been killed by
nightfall that the mountains became hillocks, and the
plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty."
Some historians believe that over one million people died in
the aftermath of the city's capture, including hundreds of
thousands of refugees from elsewhere, making it one of the
most bloody captures of a city in world history.
Really? Each soldier slaughtered hundreds of people within a matter of days or, at most, weeks? And the people never fled en masse, unlike the refugees who had fled before them?
Excavations revealed drastic rebuilding of the city's
fortifications in the aftermath, but the prosperity of the
city had passed.
Who would have been around to rebuild the city? I don't doubt the Mongols slaughtered large numbers of people or that they razed entire cities, but IMNSHO stories like the above are obviously myths.
If you look at the basic mechanics of well-documented atrocities at that scale--Rwandan Genocide, Holocaust, Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, Great Chinese Famine, etc--you'll see some combination of long time periods, very modern technology, and a sophisticated socio-political apparatus leveraged for population control. Without some mix of these things, you have no hope of killing enough people before they literally run for the hills and escape your reach.
It's commonly reported that Mongol soldiers were tasked with slaughtering the local population after taking a defended city. How many each killed and how many were killed in total can be debated. For example, they also did this to Beijing.
> The level of destruction of people and centres of culture puts any praise of him beyond the pale.
I disagree. If that was the case, then no man would be praiseworthy.
> His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
No he didn't and no it wasn't anything near the most important city in western asia. Go read about the supposed destruction of the cities and see how absurd it is.
Certainly the status of Merv declined as the mongols diverted trade routes to suit them but that's empire.
Also, west asia has lots of great and important cities. I wouldn't go around complaining Mery was the most important cities in west asia when cities like jerusalem, baghdad and a bunch more exist in west asia.
What he was was a military man of his time and place, much like Alexander the Great, George Washington, Belisarius, Winston Churchill or Douglas MacArthur.
Alexander the Great is far from being idolized the way Genghis Khan is being idolized in this article.
As for the rest of that list, I don't recall any of them having been responsible for massacring and plundering almost an entire continent. And non of them (except Washington in the US) are held at high esteem at all.
The photo in this article inspired me to do a google image search on mongolia. Never did I realise how much beauty is over there. For some reason I just gathered Mongolia consisted of either just desert, snow, or desert and snow. Just beautiful, perhaps one day I will make it there.
There is a great way to make it to Mongolia: by train. You can take the Trans-Siberian Railway [0] and connect with the Trans-Mongolian Line [1]. These are relatively slow trains, it takes about a week to go from Moskow to Ulaanbaatar. I haven't done it myself, but it's definitively on my bucket list.
If you are interested in this check out the Expedition Unknown episode on Genghis Khan's tomb. They basically know where it is but aren't allowed to uncover it.
I don't like the reverential tone here; Ghengis Khan is one of the top contenders for the title of Worst Human Being in History, if the criteria are body count and suffering inflicted. We have a tendency to worship power and dominance even today, but there is no virtue in power for the sake of power.
Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shihuang, and many other warlords, generals, emperors, ... Was Genghis Khan appreciably worse than these guys? Or is the way history works amoral?
This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study.
The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context.
As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.
It is "history", but it doesn't seem to too negatively affect our view of him. In fact, these atrocities sort of get drowned out in the noise of human history's numbers almost continual atrocities. We all know Genghis Khan killed lots of people, we all know what Caesar, Alexander did also. We know about the genocides that occurred as many cultures (often our own) displaced other cultures (many completely obliterated). Heck, that is even before we look at things like colonialism. Humans have a history of simply being barbarians, it is hard to judge morally more than a few hundred years in the past.
And of course there are atrocities going on right now, and the future probably holds atrocities just as bad or worse. That's true enough. I don't react to the Mongol atrocities with anger or a desire for revenge, just a terrible sadness that this is what we've done to each other, and a hope (that may be naive) that we can learn not to do it again. I don't know what else to tell you- again, if you want to study ethics I'm probably not the best teacher but I do think that not glorifying violence is a good start.
You don't have to glorify violence to remember someone's achievements. So George washington killed Indians and owned slaves. Ya, that's bad of course, but he still helped found the USA, fought the British, and was a decent first president. History is just nuanced.
I'm completely amazed (and a bit disgusted) at how they don't want the tomb to be found "out of respect".
The guy was responsible for the eradication of many civilizations, and a ridiculous amount of plundering, death, and destruction. How can you act "out of respect" to that?
154 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 233 ms ] threadhttp://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-t...
It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
I don't think it was luck. It was probably the lack of cars ;)
https://www.geochemsoc.org/files/6214/1261/1770/SP-2_271-284...
(If for no other reason than the wild anachronism; Khan was born in 1162).
>propel or carry along by force in a specified direction
You can say the same with Japan.
Mongols never invaded it cause of bad weather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan
What they did to Iran (formerly Persia) and the middle east can not be forgotten. Killing a mother while she was breastfeeding her infant baby? Even animals don't do that. I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
Don't look too closely into your own ancestry; the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history.
I think you're forgetting about the fact that in all human history, Genghis stands out as one of the cruelest and most violent rulers. As far as I know, Iranians (Persians) never did the same thing to other nations, not even for revenge. I guess that's the main reason saving Iranians from "existential despair".
"The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within the interior space of two narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks) joined together one on top of the other with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey, and more honey would be poured on the victim to attract insects, with special attention devoted to the eyes, ears, mouth, face, genitals, and anus. In some cases, the executioner would mix milk and honey and pour that mixture all over the victim. The victim would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects which would eat and breed within the victim's exposed flesh, which—pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects—became increasingly gangrenous. The individual would lie naked, covered from head to toe in milk, honey, and his own feces. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that fatal dehydration or starvation did not occur. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation, and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.[1]."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism
"Herodotus accounts for the turn of Harpagus' support to a version of the cannibal feast of Thyestes.[1] He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane, would give birth to a king who would overthrow him, ordered Harpagus to expose the child at birth. Harpagus, reluctant to spill his own royal blood, gave the child (Cyrus) to a shepherd named Mitradates,[2] who raised him as his own son.
Ten years later, when Cyrus was discovered alive, Astyages cruelly punished Harpagus by killing Harpagus' only son and feeding him to the courtier during a banquet. It is said that Harpagus did not react during the banquet, other than to gather the pieces of his son and remove them for burial."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpagus
Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
> He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane ...
Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
I don't understand how it's a fake account. Would you mind keeping the discussion on a civil level?
> Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
Yes, the Persians and the Greeks were at war and enemies. In fact, that was part of my point. The portrayal you have of Genghis Khan comes from his enemies too.
> Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I understand how if you're not familiar with Herodotus it can be hard to believe anything he says since he does enjoy to add details to personify stories. That is no reason to discount everything he says though, most of ancient written history is embellished. There's a lot of work on the reliabiliy of his texts if you're interested.
> I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
Uh...absolutely? There is nothing uncivil about in and it's literally on the same topic that your post was about.
Er... not sure what animals you're referring to?
Predators in general seem to be quite happy to chow down on prey regardless of what activity it's involved in at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMQFdJXS2Gk
I would suspect rather easily, because they didn't do it.
Of course they do. A bunch of helpless babies and a mother distracted by them would be a windfall for any predator.
> I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
There is not a human being alive who doesn't have terrible atrocity in their bloodline. Genghis Khan isn't more evil just because he happened to be more successful than most.
Why should they have trouble "living with that"? Are you saying they're responsible?
Genghis Khan is simply Mongolia’s greatest hero. The West recalls only what he conquered, but Mongolians remember what he created. His empire connected East and West, allowing the Silk Road to flourish. His rule enshrined the concepts of diplomatic immunity and religious freedom. He established a reliable postal service and the use of paper money. Genghis Khan didn’t just conquer the world, he civilised it.
By Conn Iggulden
> It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
It was dumb luck that the first major european campaign ended. But it was also lots of diplomatic negotiations and the Pope's willingness to "humble" himself before the "Great Khans". Because of the christian tradition of "Render under Caesar" set by jesus himself in the new testament, Popes and christian leaders were willing to "bow before the khan". Whereas other leaders ( muslim, chinese, russians, etc ) refused for variety of reasons and were conquered. Also, the pope had the benefit of seeing mongols crush one empire after another by the time the mongols reached europe, so they weren't blinded by hubris like the Khwarazmian empire. For example, when the mongols sent a delegation to the shah of khwarazmian, he had them tortured and killed and sent a humiliated surviving diplomat back to genghis khan. The pope knew about what happened to the shah and the khwarazmian empire and he knew to act accordingly. When the mongols sent a delegate to Rome, he didn't have them tortured and killed. Instead the pope sent out his own delegation to develop political ties. Even trying to form alliances with the mongols against the muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum
The history of western civilization changed completely because the "humility" of the pope and the catholic church. It was the friendly relations with the mongol empire which gave italians lucrative trade relations within the mongol empire which led to the rise of the medicis, the italian renaissance and a rebirth of europe from the doldrums of the dark ages.
Arguably one of the most important events in human history is the many trade delegations the pope sent to mongolia to get favorable trade deals with the mongol empire. Without that, we don't have italian renaissance. And the collapse of the mongol empire and especially the golden horde which led to a completely severing of links between italy/europe to the rest of asia is what led to the age of european exploration. It was the collapse of the overland trade routes protected by the mongols that led to europe's search for a sea route. It isn't a coincidence that columbus set for sail a few years after Ivan the Great defeated the golden horde in 1480 and ended mongol rule over the rus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_stand_on_the_Ugra_river
In any case it's a geographic name coextensive with a modern polity now, and a modern speaker using it to identify a geographic location even for events that predate the modern polity is normal and clear.
See https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Mongols-have-a-reasonable-chan... especially the answer by Tim ONeil.
That's a pretty bad answer. Look at the conquest of Southern Song - the Mongols were operating far from the steppe, they were up against a large number of fortified positions, and in terrain that wasn't well suited for them (Southern China is not "open country", like Tim ONeill claims). It also didn't fall quickly (the way he says the centralized polities fell), it took decades of devastating war.
It's true that people often exaggerate how close Western Europe came to being conquered by the Mongols. But people arguing against that idea often throw around just as much bad history.
In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol invasion...it had 3. This meant the Mongols could capture the kingdom with a handful of simultaneous sustained sieges. In contrast, at this time, there were hundreds of castles in Europe, most built to withstand years-long sieges, and most within reinforcement range of their neighbors.
Furthermore, Western Europe back then was heavily forested. Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films. Traversing this wilderness would have been possible but difficult for small groups. For an army of mounted horsemen, it would have been extremely difficult. For an army of horsemen each requiring multiple horses, it would have been effectively impossible.
Combining the lack of grazing pasture for the horses, the wild forests preventing the Mongols from utilizing their hit-and-run tactics to any meaningful effect, and the necessity to carry out thousands of sieges and blockades against a well-fed and entrenched enemy, the Mongols had no chance to invade Western Europe.
I think that's incredibly misleading. The Song dynasty had numerous impressive city walls, forts, fortified passes, etc. There's no reason to act as if the only worthwhile fortified structures are castles (should we overlook the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople because they weren't castles?).
> Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films.
Again, this is very misleading. We're talking about a period after most of the Great Clearance. It's also true that many of the woods that were left were maintained woods.
IIRC the Song also didn't have great castle making technology. Didn't they do earthen fortifications reinforced with clay bricks? And weren't the walled cities typically sitting on plains, possibly without a moat? That's a lot easier to attack than a composite stone wall sitting on a mountain.
And calling their tactics "hit and run" is a huge oversimplification, as is the rest of your points.
With the higher density came a higher density of fortifications. With a low density the Mongols could just bypass anything they couldn't take, but with enough of these forts an invading army opened itself to attack from every direction.
The newer European fortresses were also a lot harder for the Mongols to attack. IIRC the Hungarians had 5 in the region the Mongols attacked and none of them fell. Germany had thousands, and they were generally higher quality. Even if they could get inside the city it was attackers in leather against defenders in plate or chain. The Mongols had no real advantages in a siege situation since they couldn't bring their coordination or mobility to bear.
And you can't trap the mongols, their mobile army lived off the land and moved far too fast with a lethality that european armies couldn't deal with.
The death of Chenggis Khan was the only thing that saved Europe from a massacre and enslavement by the mongols.
It's easy to mythologize the Mongols, but when they tried to move on castle builders in the levant and Eastern Europe they got their asses kicked. Repeatedly.
As someone from the middle East (with a high chance of having Mongol blood), it does annoy me how much people are enamoured by Genghis khan. The guy was a brutal imperialist.
I was international student and met many at my university. It was mind boggling how almost everyone would celebrate their cultures' conquests & wars and at the same time call Western conquests evil and the worst thing.
It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
I am assuming the people who celebrate the wars of kings in their lands are more than 500 years old while Western colonialism sort of stopped just 50-100 years back.
So the Western atrocities are still fresh in the mind while people forget the 1000 year old atrocities.
E.g. when looking at Robert Mugabe's hostility towards Britain in particular (without wanting to justify his authoritarianism and violence) it is worth considering that he fought for independence, and though Britain as responsible for allowing Rhodesia to happen.
But the list is massive.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
Are you forgetting about modern western imperialist adventures such as Iraq and Afghanistan, entering their 16th year? Where millions of civilians were and are still being killed, injured, displaced, tortured and all around stomped on in terms of human rights, led by some of the most powerful western nations in the world. These wars were cheered on by a good chunk of US and UK citizenry for years before they conveniently faded into the background.
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
That's even ignoring the direct relations of these invasions to the more recent conflicts in Libya, Syria, and ISIS, the boogeymen armed and created by the same people who started these wars not long ago.
Western imperialism is alive and well.
And that western nations are supporting freedom fighters in Syria.
It is rare everywhere. Even in the west.
We celebrate george washington and have statues, schools, etc named after racist slavers and genocidal murderers.
> It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
Really? You think most of us think western imperialism was horrible? We may give lip service to it, but we celebrate our heritage. From ancient greece to rome to the british empire to now our american empire, we celebrate our conquests and victories.
The standard trope amongst the british is that the british empire brought civilization and democracy to most of the world. Our justification for the american empire is that we bring "freedom" to the world.
I'm not sure what a "thorough self evaluation" would actually mean. I don't think that's even remotely feasible, given the immense scope of the subject matter. What has happened is that certain elements within western civilization have focused their efforts on criticizing western civilization, some in good faith and some not, and the rest of western civilization has allowed them to do so. That is the part that is rare, just like suicide, and for the same reason.
Western culture is built on the results of the Greek and Roman empires, the Catholic Church, the English (and French/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch) empire, and the American conquest.
No one is the villain of their own story. And these empires - not the Persian, Ottoman, Germanic, native American, Russian, and other empires which opposed them, or the Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolian, and other empires which didn't feature in their storyline - wrote the storybooks.
It's the natural way to judge things - perhaps not the most accurate or honest, but those take a lot of effort to establish.
Care to respond rather than downvote?
now their memories are faded and people are free to lionize without a lot of outcry.
Coming from a small European country what are the things I should be ashamed of?
Just the British and Americans? Or are Spanish/Portuguese empires also something I should be constantly aware of.
Luckily I havent seen any Belgian chocolate on sale here yet, ha. Hopefully the Swiss have stayed isolated long enough to not add in any more European guilt!
https://mobile.nytimes.com/1996/12/14/world/swiss-acknowledg...
Spain and Portugal are no longer powerful nations, in either a military or economic sense (Portugal ranks behind Slovenia in GDP per capita for example).
If Italy were a super power today, they would be endlessly targeted for derision for their past connections to empire/s. It would be proclaimed that their present status was a direct result of abuses from the past and that they should feel guilty about it all.
Britain lost its empire and has persistently reduced in importance the last century, so they're rarely targeted for guilt regarding that (save for a few exceptions). It's a chapter in history books now, like so many former empires.
The Ottoman Empire? Long gone. Turkey isn't a major world power. As such, most of the world simply doesn't care about its terrible past.
People tend to forget all the good.
The same can be said for the Romans. They slaughtered and enslaved the native peoples of the Iberian peninsula, yet they also built roads, aqueducts, introduced new farming techniques and education.
Should present-day italians feel ashamed of what their ancestors did? I don't think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
According to your extremist logic, the following were all pretty much Hitler as well:
- Mayans
- Egyptians
- Chinese
- Mongols
- Romans
- Macedonians
- Persians
- Russians
- Omayyad Caliphate
- Ottoman Empire/Turkey
- All african tribes who sold their brethren into slavery
- French
- British
- Portuguese
- Spanish
- Dutch
- Germans
Pretty much any civilization that has ever existed has committed atrocities.
What they did was brutal and there's no excusing this, but they also did good. You can deny it all you want but this is a fact.
Yes. They have the luxury of my judgements having absolutely no impact on them. As their good acts do not compensate for the atrocities, we should be ashamed of what they've done, and try not to do the same in the future. Remembering the good without keeping that in mind leads to the same tragedies playing out again.
For the Portuguese, you probably have to look at Africa and Southeast Asia; I don't know much about them.
That said, there are still people pissed about the Mongol conquest. Genghis Khan is still hated in China, and central Asia and especially the middle east.
For instance, in popular culture, such as Jinyong's Legend of the Condor Heroes, Genghis Khan is a secondary character, depicted as a smart leader who was shaped by the treachery of his own sworn brother and by the oppression of the Jurchen Jin dynasty. The reader is lead to empathize with Genghis Khan, through the eyes of Guojing, the patriotic Sung protagonist, despite the resentment that exists between him and Genghis Khan, the Mongolian leader who has decided to turn on their Sung dynasty allies.
I know Jinyong's work is fiction with a historical background, but I believe his work is a good indication of Chinese sentiments towards historical events and figures.
Chinese suffered as much as other conquered lands, to say to least. The Yuan dynasty lasted less than a century, one of the shortest period in the history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Mixed
Even in the fiction `Jingyong`'s book, I wouldn't say the author had a bias favor Khan, I guess smart readers could read it from the book. The Khan would massacre every one if the be-seiged refuse to surrender, and they usually would drive herds of surrendered to the gate. Not to mention in the book the Kan is Kublai instead, and he is noway the secondary character.
That's in the sequel, The Return of the Condor Heroes, which depicts events after the death of Genghis Khan.
And since you mention Kublai, Genghis Khan only started the conquest of China. He only managed to conquer West Xia before his death. The rest of the conquest of China was done by his descendants, and so I believe most of the atrocities towards the Chinese occurred then.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27mism/how_i...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan
The mongols didn't exterminate the people they conquered and settle the land with mongols.
> Why is one OK and the other not?
For the same reason why nazi germany was exceptionally evil.
The mongols weren't good. They were empire builders. But they didn't set out to exterminate people.
The difference between western imperialism and mongol imperialism is that russians, chinese, koreans, turks, central asians, arabs, persians, siberians, etc still exist.
Now compare that to what happened to the native americas, inuits, aborigines, etc.
Well... they sort of did. It's just that their selection criteria amounted to "those who oppose us" rather than "those of ancestries we consider bad".
On the macro-scale, there's little difference.
Extermination wasn't their goal, but IIRC they had a policy of exterminating any who resisted them, as a lesson to others. That wasn't standard policy for all empire builders.
Columbus Day is still very much a thing and Queen Elizabeth is still very much of a celebrated Queen of England and a source of pride. Many more examples abound.
His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv
Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
>Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies.
Merv has surrendered, but the war wasn't over. It wasn't just mindless killing, it was for a military objective.
>Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
You don't target enemy military assets with fire bombings.
>It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
The motivation for it wasn't to kill civilians, it was always for military reasons.
Truman dropped nuclear bombs on both cities, and the vast majority of their citizens survived the bombings.
If you look at the basic mechanics of well-documented atrocities at that scale--Rwandan Genocide, Holocaust, Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, Great Chinese Famine, etc--you'll see some combination of long time periods, very modern technology, and a sophisticated socio-political apparatus leveraged for population control. Without some mix of these things, you have no hope of killing enough people before they literally run for the hills and escape your reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhongdu
It was "reported" by the mongols to scare other cities to surrender without a fight. It was part of what we call war propaganda.
And of course also by the enemies of the mongols to demonize the mongols and make the local population fight harder.
But most of it is pure myth. Common sense tells you that.
I disagree. If that was the case, then no man would be praiseworthy.
> His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
No he didn't and no it wasn't anything near the most important city in western asia. Go read about the supposed destruction of the cities and see how absurd it is.
Certainly the status of Merv declined as the mongols diverted trade routes to suit them but that's empire.
Also, west asia has lots of great and important cities. I wouldn't go around complaining Mery was the most important cities in west asia when cities like jerusalem, baghdad and a bunch more exist in west asia.
As for the rest of that list, I don't recall any of them having been responsible for massacring and plundering almost an entire continent. And non of them (except Washington in the US) are held at high esteem at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...
This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study.
The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context.
As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.
The guy was responsible for the eradication of many civilizations, and a ridiculous amount of plundering, death, and destruction. How can you act "out of respect" to that?