Mongols and crualty

[Meneldil]

While I was looking through this forum, I just found out an old topic about the movie 'Alexander' and the fact that there should be a movie a Gengiz-Khan. This topic become a topic about the mongols and their crualty. Some people (Rosacrux Redux) were saying that mongols were just a bunch of stupid barbarians and butchers, while some other (The Wizard, me) were having a less extrimistic (sp?) point of view.

I read a lot of books (modern research, fiction books, primary sources) on the matter, and I can now affirm that the occidental point of view about the mongols is rather silly.

Here are a few facts to prove my point :

- Genghis built Karakorum, which quickly became one of the most developped and wealthiest city of Eurasia. This city was built from scrach in the middle of nowhere. However, Gengis Khan brought irrigation, with the help of chineses technicians. He created a street for each known religion or culture (christians, muslim merchants, chineses).

- Genghis created a very effective administration, that allowed him to rule over the largest empire known. Unlike what happened almost everywhere else in the world, corruption was not plaguing the whole empire.

- Genghis created the Waza (that's the french spelling). This law code (based on a model similar to the anglo-saxon common law) was used long after the mongols disappeared in many eurasian regions.

- The Mongols created an alphabet, which was also still used in some regions of asia minor as well as some region of China at the beginning of the last century.

- Trade known a major boost under the mongols rule. The silk road, which was less and less efficient before the mongol invasion, became a major trade road once again. The mongol rule brought security to the trade roads between europe and asia.

- A large part of the Mongol crualty is just fairy tales. The skull towers, cannibalism and all that are mostly propaganda written by people who were afraid by the Mongols.

- Mongols (Ogodai) created an effective mail service, which would be unequaled for centuries. About 200.000 horses were available for this mail service. It would take only between 7 and 11 days for a letter to go through the empire.

- China was a closed country. Christians and Muslims were barely tolered. Once Kubilay setted his capital to Pekin, he developped trade accross the country, and opened China to the rest of the world.
Once mongols were kicked out of China, the country closed his frontiers once more. Christians and muslims were either deported or killed, and when the europeans 'invaded' China centuries later, the country had barely evolved since the middle-age.

Too late to write anything else. I'll post the rest tomorrow, if anyone is interested.

[Colovion]

After reading a number of books on the Mongols I have come to the conclusions that they were in fact, the most advanced and tactically adept organisation of warriors of their time period. To them Europe was merely a small penninsula with a number of warring fiefdoms, puny and insignificant to the majesty of the Mongol empire. Western education neglects to delve into the Asian conquerers such as the Khans and Tamerlane. There are no conquerers in the Western world who had anything close to the wealth of manpower, tactical ability and treasure that the Mongols and, later, Tamerlanes Tatars had. Alexander had but a breath of the air the Asian glory exuded - and in actuality encompasses the only Western semblance of such prowess in battle and empire building. Had he lived longer, I do not doubt his exploits to have been much greater.

I tell you the truth, the Europeons were the barbarians in the time of the Khans and the steppe warriors.

For those who disagree with the scant refferences which I have drawn, seemingly to you, out of nothing, I implore you to read a few books which have opened my eyes to the exploits of formerly unknown greatness.

http://www.haroldlamb.net/history.htm

Specifically Tamerlane, Genghis Khan: Emperor of All Men and, what I feel to be the pinnacle of his books: The March of the Barbarians - all of which are written in a way it seems you are apart of the history, and not merely reading a history book.

Oh yes, and his books outlining Alexander and Charlemange are also amazing. I do implore you once more, give them a gander.

edit - yes the Mongols were cruel - but so was all warfare in those days. The only reason you remember the exploits of the Mongols and such steppe warriors as being that much more terrible was because they were performed on a much larger scale.

[PanzerJaeger]

You can be very advanced and still take a cruel attitude toward your enemies - look at Rome.

I dont know enough about the Mongols to discuss it, but it seems the points in the original post were pointing out the advances in the mongol empire. That doesnt exempt them from cruelty.

[Colovion]

You can be very advanced and still take a cruel attitude toward your enemies - look at Rome.

I dont know enough about the Mongols to discuss it, but it seems the points in the original post were pointing out the advances in the mongol empire. That doesnt exempt them from cruelty.

I've yet to come across any culture which conquered a large area of land to be without cruel actions towards the populace of said region or the army protecting it.

[Franconicus]

As far as I know the Mongols were very good in adopting things from other civilisations. I guess there are several reasons why they appear to be cruel:

1. They had a civilisation that was very different from what they foung in China Persia ... . Living in big towns, houses, having burocracy ... seemed to them pervert. I think they saw it as their destiny to erase these cultures. Dchegis Khan wanted to destroy all town until one of his generals explained him that he could get more money and goods if he didn't. (He destroid a lot anyway)

2. They came from the steppe and life was rough. And cruelty helped them a lot. They killed all the people in towns that tried to resist. (I think Alexander did the same).

3. People in Europe were shocked of the Mongolian invasion. For them it was a complete different culture too and so the Mogols seemed to be just beasts.

[Al Khalifah]

.. following from Franconicus

4. The largely nomadic nature of their warrior class and indeed the Mongol people as a whole. Though they supported trade and the development of cities and farming under their dominion, the Mongols themselves were a very mobile people. This would seem rather barbaric to the much more stationary European feudal powers where the nature of the system effectively tied the people to the land for the majority of the year unless there was a call to arms. A Mongol soldier who owned a mount would most likely have travelled further in his life time than many people have today, much further than a contemporary European soldier.

[travel zen]

The Mongols were like any other culture at the time....only more sucessful and had a better leader than the rest.

They were less cruel than most other empires, but had more success in warefare.

[Meneldil]

Well, yes, this topic should be re-named (I know, I created it, but heh)

Well, my main point was to prove that mongols were not a bunch of guys who just spent their time riding horses and killing innocents. They created a very advanced and successful civilisation in Eurasia (unlike Alexander and his Diadochi I may say).

Most account on the mongols descripting them as butchers, cannibals or even demons were written by people who had never travelled visited the mongol empire and who had never ever met a mongol in their life.
On the other hand, all people who visited the Khan empire described it as a weird but fantastic country, where everyone respected the law, where muslims and christians lived in peace (kinda unusual at this time), and where people were rewarded for their skills rather than for their birth.

As Panzer said, they were kinda the Romans of the middle age (just as there was a Pax Romana, there was a Pax Mongolica)

[Al Khalifah]

The Christian kingdoms were not in total opposition to the Mongols it must be said. Many Christian princesses were offered as bridges to senior mongols in the hope of creating an alliance between their kingdoms. There was also a very strong effort to convert the Khan to Christianity, due to several similarities between the arrival of the Mongols and the prophesised arrival of Prester John - the Christian King from the East who would drive the Muslims from the Holy Land.
Unfortunately (for the Catholic Kings of Europe) such efforts were fruitless. Most western princesses were unenthusiastic to say the least to marry pagan warrior lords and the Khanates advance into the Middle East halted before Jerusalem. Had the Mongols captured the Holy city, it probably would've become a multi-cultural city like Karakorum anyway.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
They were pretty good guys to themselves. Like Genghiz's Karakurum, Tamerlane made Semerkand virtually the greatest city of its time. However, it was at the cost anything on their way. Hulagu literally destroyed Baghdad, the greatest city of its time, burning -maybe- the richest library on the earth; Tamelane did the same to Sivas (Sevasteia) in his Asia Minor campaign. Their cruelty against people, albeit with the usual grain of salt, was legendary. Towers built with bodiless heads was an infamous trademark of Tamerlane, which he built anywhere who dared to oppose him after his triumph.

http://www.thelib.com/gallery/albums/userpics/GAH1.gif

The Mongol hordes contributed to civilization only after sort of submitting to it. The Golden Horde assimilated among the Turks they were to rule, adapting their language; the Il Khans became only another native dynasty in Persia/Middle East; Kublai's branch morphed into the Yuan, Chinise in anything but the long gone past; Tamerlane's mother toungue was already Turkish and his descendants' place in the history of civilizations (Ulug Bey, renowned astronomer himself; Huseyn Baykara, poet and great patron of arts and sciences; Babur and his "Mughals") is much more secured.

This is not the degrade the Mongol ethnies in any way. But the was Genghis opened to them a virtual world domination was deconstructivistical in nature, and maybe it just had to be that way.

A side note, what you report French spell as Waza is originally Yasa with a hard "s".

:bow:
-

[Franconicus]

[QUOTE=Meneldil]Well, yes, this topic should be re-named (I know, I created it, but heh)QUOTE]
Maybe the topic is: Why do we judge the Mongols for being cruel and the the Romans not. (look at Cesars war against Gaul!)

My attampt for explanation: The Romans conquered most parts of Europe, Alexander did the same on his part of the world. And as you know, the winner writes the history (or is it 'his story'?)
The Mongols didn't conquer western Europe. Maybe the stories about their bratality are coming from here?

[QUOTE=Meneldil]Well, my main point was to prove that mongols were not a bunch of guys who just spent their time riding horses and killing innocents. They created a very advanced and successful civilisation in Eurasia (unlike Alexander and his Diadochi I may say).QUOTE]

Helenism as a civilisation was (and maybe is) very successful. Even though their empires were destrit soon, the Romans adopted the Hellenism; so did the Jewish and Helenism entered the Bible. Also Helenism influenced the Middle Age (Scholastic, Thomas of Aquin).

[The Wizard]

Another sure contributor to the stereotype of Mongols being mindless killers sparing no-one is confusion.

Confusion, you say? Yes, confusion -- confusion between Chingis Khan and his Turco-Mongol successor of sorts, Timur-i-Lenk or Tamerlane.

Take the skull towers for instance. Many people instantly connect this to the Mongols, while it actually never mentioned in contemporary sources, such as the very reliable Secret History of the Mongols. It was, however, a favored strategem of Timur to use this as a reminder of what happened to those that opposed him.

It didn't work however -- Timur had to come back many times to once again subjugate those under his 'control'. Take, for instance, the Jalayrids of Baghdad and Iraq. Defeated by Timur at first, they rose in resistance to him when he attacked the Mamluks and the Ottomans. He had to go back after he had defeated Beyazid Yildirim (how the hell am I supposed to get that Turkish letter that's supposed to be in place of those i's anyways? ~;p) and the Mamluks to seize Baghdad (and reduce it a second time) again!

Compared to this Mongol psychological warfare was far more effective, while the killings of Timur were actually greater than those of Chingis, Subedei, and Hulegu. Anyone got any thoughts on why that was so?



~Wiz

[Byzantine Prince]

- Genghis built Karakorum, which quickly became one of the most developped and wealthiest city of Eurasia. This city was built from scrach in the middle of nowhere. However, Gengis Khan brought irrigation, with the help of chineses technicians. He created a street for each known religion or culture (christians, muslim merchants, chineses).
It this city was as great as you say how come non of remains(except for a turtle sculpture)? Oh and the Buddhist temple was built after the khans. Common man, Rome was destroyed 5 times and it still has more remains then a turtle.

- Genghis created a very effective administration, that allowed him to rule over the largest empire known. Unlike what happened almost everywhere else in the world, corruption was not plaguing the whole empire.
Says you. How do we know. His empire was so large anyone could do anything they wanted without anyone ever knowing


- Genghis created the Waza (that's the french spelling). This law code (based on a model similar to the anglo-saxon common law) was used long after the mongols disappeared in many eurasian regions.
Lot's of places had laws since the begging of time. Why is this such a great achievement in teh 1200's?


- The Mongols created an alphabet, which was also still used in some regions of asia minor as well as some region of China at the beginning of the last century.
Never heard of this, sounds interesting. Got any pics of it?


- Trade known a major boost under the mongols rule. The silk road, which was less and less efficient before the mongol invasion, became a major trade road once again. The mongol rule brought security to the trade roads between europe and asia.
And they had more silk. I guess the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people was worth it just for the silk.


- A large part of the Mongol crualty is just fairy tales. The skull towers, cannibalism and all that are mostly propaganda written by people who were afraid by the Mongols.
Yes everyone that was ever conqured described them exactly the same in a huge consipiracy. I guess the destruction of entire cities wasn't evidence enough, they had to make some stuff.


- Mongols (Ogodai) created an effective mail service, which would be unequaled for centuries. About 200.000 horses were available for this mail service. It would take only between 7 and 11 days for a letter to go through the empire.
Good for them, nobody said that the mongols weren't good on horses.


- China was a closed country. Christians and Muslims were barely tolered. Once Kubilay setted his capital to Pekin, he developped trade accross the country, and opened China to the rest of the world.
Once mongols were kicked out of China, the country closed his frontiers once more. Christians and muslims were either deported or killed, and when the europeans 'invaded' China centuries later, the country had barely evolved since the middle-age.
Um, China was one of the earliest civilizations on earth. They have given us Christians and western people enormous gifts in terms of discoveries and culture. How can you say the Mongols did anything good for anyone but themselves? Furthermore how can you say they tolerated us more like it even matters?


Well, my main point was to prove that mongols were not a bunch of guys who just spent their time riding horses and killing innocents.
Well your main point is completely false. Especially when you compare to Alexander who lived 1500 years before the Mongols started then massive campaigns.

[The Wizard]

It this city was as great as you say how come non of remains(except for a turtle sculpture)? Oh and the Buddhist temple was built after the khans. Common man, Rome was destroyed 5 times and it still has more remains then a turtle.

A turtle? Yes. Not to forget the walls, plus the foundations of the palaces. Never mind the many descriptions of travellers, Marco Polo first of the Europeans (or whomever he stole the account from).

Remember that Qaraqorum was a city built by a steppe civilization. Like Tyspwn (Ctesiphon) before it, and the capital of the Khazar khaganate, not to mention the capital of the Blue Horde (Saray Batu and then Saray Berke [sp?]), it started out as a large nomad camp. Tents, pavilions, the works. But no stone buildings. It took Tyspwn about a century to turn into a full-blown city, comparable to Seleukia on the opposite bank.

Since Qubilai transferred the capital to Ta-Tu (Beijing) before that century (for Qaraqorum!) was complete, the city never had much chance to become the city it was supposed to become. The city also lost prestige for Qubilai, for his base of power was Ta-Tu in the civil war. His successors of the Yuan dynasty lost all interest for things outside of China and Qaraqorum fell into disregard and oblivion.


Says you. How do we know. His empire was so large anyone could do anything they wanted without anyone ever knowing

Have you, perchance, ever heard of the Secret History of the Mongol empire? Written by some court member, it is regarded as being very accurate: there was a reason it was kept secret.

It accurately described the laws Chingis set out in the famous khuriltai on the banks of the Onon river. These laws included turning the Mongol society, so shortly out of the chaos of intertribal warfare and so recently brought under a single central authority, into a series of communities which were obliged to send an amount of fighting men to serve in the khakhan's tumens, making sure these administrative units worked well and that the Mongol army would function well. This points at an advanced, complex administration with a lot of rules; no other way could such a degree of organization within these units, subservient to the khakhan, be expected to supply a fixed amount of men.

The khanates that started to emerge from Chingis' death and on copied these laws, also pointing out that the administation was sound and effective. It worked; economically all regions conquered by the Mongols took flight quickly after they settled down (took a bit longer for the Il-Khanate).


Lot's of places had laws since the begging of time. Why is this such a great achievement in teh 1200's?

How about the fact that this is a tribal steppe people? Such empires which had come before the Mongols had not exceeded the level of a tribal confederation with a fear-inducing reputation for raiding and warring. Chingis turned the confederation he had fought together into a centrally administered state. Not something any kingdom in Europe could say.


And they had more silk. I guess the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people was worth it just for the silk.

Your point being ...?


Yes everyone that was ever conqured described them exactly the same in a huge consipiracy. I guess the destruction of entire cities wasn't evidence enough, they had to make some stuff.

So, they destroyed 'some cities'. If I recall, Romans and Greeks destroyed some cities. Without much reason at times too: Persepolis was burned, when it had surrendered with no resistance to Alexander!

No, the Mongols destroyed cities that resisted to them. They saw those as a threat. Unique to the Mongols? Absolutely not. Did Alexander not have Thebes razed to the ground, didn't the Romans burn Corinth, did Aurelian not destroy Palmyra after it had rebelled again, after he had spared the city?


Um, China was one of the earliest civilizations on earth. They have given us Christians and western people enormous gifts in terms of discoveries and culture. How can you say the Mongols did anything good for anyone but themselves? Furthermore how can you say they tolerated us more like it even matters?

Toleration does not matter? The fact that the Mongols kick-started the Renaissance does not matter?

How in the world do you think Chinese inventions and thoughts reached Europe? Through jesuits and Portuguese? No, such things started reaching Europe in earnest from the time of Chingis, and especially Qubilai, over the Silk Road which they re-opened.

In fact, both Silk Routes were part of the Mongol empire. The more famous southern one, which ran from the old Han capital, through such cities as Samarqand and Bam, to the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean was part of the Mongol empire since Chingis. And the less famous one, destroyed by Timur (!) later on, which also went from the old Han capital, through Samarqand as well, but then split off, rounded the Caspian Sea, went through such cities as Astrakhan and Saray Berke, and then arrived at Qaffa, which later became a Genoese trading post!



Well your main point is completely false. Especially when you compare to Alexander who lived 1500 years before the Mongols started then massive campaigns.


I don't understand your point here in the least. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me?

And while you're at it, could you please explain to me what you have against the Mongols which renders you unable to accept, no, even ponder the thought that they maybe just could have been good, like the vikings?

You are no different than Rosacrux in that sense. You guys are starting to make me think that for some strange reason, Greeks have a natural hate against the Mongols! Preposterous maybe, but I won't explore the reasons for that.



~Wiz

[Byzantine Prince]

A turtle?
This thing:
http://img151.echo.cx/img151/4581/tortoise5uk.jpg
The only thing that survived from the period. Everything in the background came much later.

Yes. Not to forget the walls, plus the foundations of the palaces. Never mind the many descriptions of travellers, Marco Polo first of the Europeans (or whomever he stole the account from).
Again you are confusing the Buddhist citadel which stands where karakorum was. I'm not denying anything ever lived there, just that it was a bunch of tents.


How about the fact that this is a tribal steppe people? Such empires which had come before the Mongols had not exceeded the level of a tribal confederation with a fear-inducing reputation for raiding and warring. Chingis turned the confederation he had fought together into a centrally administered state. Not something any kingdom in Europe could say.
Every kingdom everywhere started like that. Macedon for example was but a tiny pice of land when the tribe started taking over it's neighbours and gaining more land and calling it Macedon.




So, they destroyed 'some cities'. If I recall, Romans and Greeks destroyed some cities. Without much reason at times too: Persepolis was burned, when it had surrendered with no resistance to Alexander!
Destroying some cities is one thing, killing eveyone involved or not is something else. I don't recall Alexander having wiped out hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.


No, the Mongols destroyed cities that resisted to them.
Heh, what they really did was they sent an emissary to ask: "Give us all your land and people, or else". Or something like that. When the leader naturally answered negatively they invaded. May I remind you this would hapen all the time. Oh and this is completely different from what Alexander did.


Toleration does not matter? The fact that the Mongols kick-started the Renaissance does not matter?
You're hillarious.


And while you're at it, could you please explain to me what you have against the Mongols....
Nothing, I just don't like it when people manipulate the truth to serve their own vision and not the truth.


...just could have been good, like the vikings?

The Vikings were good? Where are you getting this information. What's next, the Nazis were kind? :dizzy2:

[Gregoshi]

BP, thanks for providing that image of the turtle. However, could you host the image on your own web space? Linking directly to an image on another web site may result in Tosa getting an email from that web site about us stealing their bandwidth.




Nothing, I just don't like it when people manipulate the truth to serve their own vision and not the truth.


That statement is the proverbial two-edged sword. Careful.

Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen, let's stop the nonsense and refrain from anymore sarcasm or snide remarks. Let's also not draw other patrons into a discussion in which they have not been involved. Thank you for your cooperation.

[AntiochusIII]

I've remembered PanzerJager creating a topic concerning of why the Nazis are the only "bad guys" that the modern world - he means the US, in fact - seems to remember, and forget every other "evil" in the world. I think the same principle applies to the Mongols, as Western authors of the time lived in fear of the Mongols invading and crushing them, utterly, and left the records of their writing about cruelty, evil, cannibalism, devillishness of the Mongols - which is no doubt exaggerated greatly, as we all know the nature of human bias.

[AntiochusIII]

BP,

I believe you see the Mongols from the eyes of their "victims" - which should be translated more properly as enemies, of the period. You can understand their fears, their perspective, and the "dark side" of the Mongols that way. But, remember, in every writing, there is bias. And, unlike Thucydides, famed and admired for his few bias, most authors were Herodotus-like. Especially, if you live in the age where the threat of a specific force can brought utter destruction to you and your family, you will be greatly exaggerating the evil part of that force's true self in such a way that they are devils from "Tartarus."

Let's see, first, from the Mongolian perspective:

You were born in a tent, and your home is none but the endless plains in front, behind, and surrounding you. You were raised under the constant struggles of life that has been made harder by desperate and cruel tribal warfares. You were betrayed often, force to betray often, even if you hate to do so and holds honor high, for the sake of survival. You see your people being united, as a great hero emerges. You join them in a new fervor, for the first time ever, that the wars of the tribes end. The hero calls for the destruction of the many foes you and your people have, including the powerful, and bullying, great empire in the south. Therefore, you sets out, and that great leader uses new, brilliant tactics: psychological warfare. This tactic of sudden destruction, a blow so hard that you need not to blow again, will be used again and again by your people, for you are always against overwhelming odds in the great many wars you fight. You will be cruel, to the point of the devil, on your enemies, and spare everyone who bows before you. You do so, and often, and succeed far and wide. You defeated that great empire which had been instigating the tribal wars within your people, and made your life so hard. You kill those who resist, let go those who humble. You help rebuild their decayed and corrupted administration, and do it their way, and then you look forward, to the other lands, as you were born to move and your destiny is to move...

Now, you come into contact with another vibrant empire a bit west. Your leader sends messages of trade and friendship to them, but, to a greatest disgrace imaginable by your people, they arrogantly, and sacrilegiously, kills your diplomats, not once, but twice. Your leader swear a bloody vengeance, and you, and all of those who are with you, howls with fury at this evil act. You go and exact revenge on those people who has harmed your people's right and pride so much. This is your most cruel acts, your far descendants (Tamerlane) may be more cruel, but in your acts no others are worse in cruelty and you justified it with a national vengeance, and you are sure the gods favor it, for they are just. Then, as the ever-moving people, you moved again...

Points:

-Vengeance is done by the great number of great people in history; Alexander the Great included. Do not bias yourself with only the Mongolian people.

-Psychological warfare of Mongolian style is utilized almost exactly the same before by the Romans - Corinth, Palmyra, and the once-powerful Carthage. Civilizations fell beneath Rome's heels as much as the Great Khan's heels.

-Mongols do establish a strong and successful administration. Ever wonder why Rome fell? And it's just half of what the Mongols holds together.

-Their incredibly warm tolerance of basic human rights and religion as well as their respectable mercy to those whom surrendered to them were ignored completely in face of their powerful strategy in war. Such sad misunderstanding happens so much in history, where the lenient conqueror is viewed with such evil if their fundamental aspects of society - especially the nonsense of the conflicts of religious beliefs - were different.

-Alexander the great, whom I believe is your hero (and nothing wrong with that, by the way) utterly destroys one of the most vibrant cities in the ancient world: Tyre, mother of Carthage, and the finest among the Phoenicians, for what reason I'm sure you know...

So you should view the Mongols with fairer eyes.

[Browning]

-Mongols do establish a strong and successful administration. Ever wonder why Rome fell? And it's just half of what the Mongols holds together.

I do not actually see Mongolian holdings nowadays. I could however see the ruins of what they destroyed. Carthago was rebuilt. Palmyra was rebuilt. But nobody will ever rebuild Mesopotamia.



their respectable mercy to those who surrendered to them

As in where Timur promised that he will not behead them if they surrender. So they surrendered. So he had them drowned.



-Alexander the great, whom I believe is your hero (and nothing wrong with that, by the way) utterly destroys one of the most vibrant cities in the ancient world: Tyre, mother of Carthage, and the finest among the Phoenicians, for what reason I'm sure you know...

For this single feat (slaughtering the defenders after they surrendered), Alexander is never called "Great" by my mouth, and I sincerely hope he burns at the bottom of hell.

[Franconicus]

Mongols were a schock for the civilisations. The muslims suffered hard. They were more civilised than the West before the mongols and couldn't recover since. The Russians were seperated from the development in the West for long and haven't caught up.

[Browning]

Mongols were a schock for the civilisations. The muslims suffered hard. They were more civilised than the West before the mongols and couldn't recover since. The Russians were seperated from the development in the West for long and haven't caught up.
Amen, brother.

[The Wizard]

Firstly, you mistake Timur, a Turco-Mongol, with the Mongols. An often-made mistake. Confusion between the original Mongols and, for instance, Timur, is one of the most prominent causes of mistaking the Mongols proper for cruel, mindless killers. There are reasons for why modern historians see the Mongols under their khakhans, the Mongol 'successor states', and the Timurids as three separate entities.

Browning, you obviously interest yourself for military history. Why, then, do you find the destruction of a single city so important as to deny Alexander the title of 'the Great'? It may have first originated as a mistranslation, but it is certainly no misnomer.

Is war supposed to be about roses and daisies? The 18th century style of warfare? Generals determining time and place of their battles? You know -- all they fought was a couple of tactical games, only then with real men instead of chess pawns, and then determined who had won the war by simple win-loss ratio. Is that what war is supposed to be?

No. Maybe in 18th-century Europe, but not in the age of the Mongols, nor any other time or place in the history of this planet. War is no game. People suffer: soldiers first, civilians later. The transition to 'total war' in the 19th and 20th centuries is just the old way of war on a much larger scale.

So Tyros got destroyed? So did Hathra. So did Ctesiphon. Just like Saray Berke, Tenochtitlan, Dura Europos, Antioch, Sardis, Itil, Sparta, Persepolis, Ilios, Knossos... need I continue? I could produce an endless list of destroyed cities and conquered civilizations. To no avail. All of it is a simple part of the complex human version of nature.

Franconicus: as I argued with Rosacrux before, the decline of the 'supremacy' amongst the many Muslim cultures is not to be found in a single, simple explanation, such as 'the Mongols did it'. History is not a whodunnit.

No, for such places as Central Asia and Iran a combination of factors should be sought. The reaction of the cultures there to the Black death; the many different strong, warlike cultures in the area at the time; and yes, the Mongols; and yes, also Timur (to a greater extent than those he deemed himself the successor of).

Also, it is to be noted that the decline of the area, Iran especially, did not take place in the 13th or 15th century, but rather at a later time period. The Safavid dynasty of Iran fell in the 17th century. Iran was weakened, but disaster was averted for a while by Nadir Shah. But after his death, Iran fractured and became a battle ground for a whole host of powers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Pair that constant warfaring to the attitude of total war in the area, lack of a central authority to guide the economy, and the traditional decline of trade due to danger and you can understand why European visitors of the area noted that many cities were ruins, empty and ghostlike.



~Wiz

[Meneldil]

Well, as usual, Byzantine Prince is just trying to prove his point without bringing any valid argument. Whoever disagrees with him is said to be a liar or stupid, while his arguing is far from being brilliant. That's mostly why he's on my ignore list now.

I'm not going to take his pointless arguing into consideration, as The Wizard already did so, but here are a few answers to other people.


I do not actually see Mongolian holdings nowadays. I could however see the ruins of what they destroyed. Carthago was rebuilt. Palmyra was rebuilt. But nobody will ever rebuild Mesopotamia.

Well, Karakorum, as well as some other cities in China and Asia are actually being 'discovered'. It's kinda funny that you say such a thing, because all cities built under the mongols' rule (I admit they were not a lot of it) were destroyed when their empires collapsed (Karakorum was destroyed by the Chineses, the capital -I'll find the name of the city later if you want- of the Golden Horde was burnt by the Russians, and so on).
Mongols didn't have the monopol of burning cities. It was a common strategy to inspire fear to your enemy, and it was used since the beginning of human history (well, Alexander, the worldwide hero burnt a whole lot of cities and killed a whole lot of innocents, just as Caesar, and almost any conquerors).


As in where Timur promised that he will not behead them if they surrender. So they surrendered. So he had them drowned.

Precisly, Timur and the Timurides weren't exactly mongols. Most of them were turkish and arabic people. And I'm not 100% sure Timurleng wasn't ethnicaly a mongol.


Mongols were a schock for the civilisations. The muslims suffered hard. They were more civilised than the West before the mongols and couldn't recover since. The Russians were seperated from the development in the West for long and haven't caught up.

Oh yeah, the same usual cliché. Muslims built a magnificient civilisation. Christians, and then mongols almost destroyed this uber-cool civilisation.

Well, not really. First, the impact of the mongols on Russia is quite unclear still nowadays. Some people say that they almost doomed Russia, while some other (including some russian historians) think that Russia became a country thanks to the mongols. You might not know it, but before the mongol invasion, russia wasn't a country, but rather a place were a lot of city-states were spending their time fighting each other. Some of these cities, such as Novgorod, Suzdal or Kiev were rather wealthy, but overall, russia was not nearly as developped as England, France or Italy, and it wasn't really considered as a part of Europe by the europeans (wonder how many crusades were launched against the Russians and the Lithuanians). On the other hand, the mongols established a solid central power, aswell as a solid administration into Russia.

Saying 'Russia was under-developped cause of the mongols' is rather easy and fairly arguable.
Same thing for the muslims. The muslims collapse could hardly be described as being caused only by the mongols.
In fact, the first muslims were kinda similar to the mongols. It was a band of desert folk who invaded and destroyed about every nation around them, and then built an unique civilisation, mixing their culture and those from the lands they invaded. I'm prolly sure that you'll never agree with that, but well, that's how I see things.

[AntiochusIII]

I do not actually see Mongolian holdings nowadays. I could however see the ruins of what they destroyed. Carthago was rebuilt. Palmyra was rebuilt. But nobody will ever rebuild Mesopotamia.The many enemies of the Mongolian empire destroyed most of them after their fall. The Mongols are one of the great catalysts of history. Like it or not, they changed the courses of history and laid the foundations of the European Renaissance - by bringing new contact between West and the culturally and technologically advanced and vibrant East. They destroyed much, and thus, left much space in which one is to rebuild anew, and they indeed helped in the re-foundation. Respect them for that, at least.


As in where Timur promised that he will not behead them if they surrender. So they surrendered. So he had them drowned.Timur's wars and the Mongols' wars are seperate wars completely. They were not even actually the pure descendants of the Mongols. Besides, Timur's fear tactics, used very often, were not the same as the actual Mongolian tactics. Mongols, the early khans, actually DO spare the surrendered ones. Their only mass-destruction of everything in their path happens only once, and the results were drastic (in other words, successful.) That happens when two Mongolian diplomat entourage, one came first to the Khawarasmian empire with a FRIENDLY gesture of trade and alliance, was murdered by the Kwarazmian official. The other one came to the empire seeking explaination for that behavior, which, to the Mongols and many others, was an extreme insult against the whole nation's (or people's) pride. He, and his entourage, were killed by the shah outright, who also took all the gifts that came with the diplomats for his own. Genghis then swore an oath to avenge this dishonor with blood of the land. Though some still claims that Central Asia is still recovering from that destructive period (which they may be right...) the only mass-scale *utter* destruction (China survived intact, for example) happens here. It's more an exception than the norm.


For this single feat (slaughtering the defenders after they surrendered), Alexander is never called "Great" by my mouth, and I sincerely hope he burns at the bottom of hell.Then there is no great man in the world in your definition. Great. ~;) Great and good are different, you should learn that. A good man doesn't necessary be a great man, and it goes the other way around, as well.

[Franconicus]

The Wizard, Meneldil,

thank you for your explanations!


Oh yeah, the same usual cliché. Muslims built a magnificient civilisation. Christians, and then mongols almost destroyed this uber-cool civilisation..

Meneldil, obviously I did not say clearly what I mean. I know my English is insufficient. All I wanted to say is that the Mongolian invasion was a break for all affected countries.



Saying 'Russia was under-developped cause of the mongols' is rather easy and fairly arguable.
Same thing for the muslims. The muslims collapse could hardly be described as being caused only by the mongols.
In fact, the first muslims were kinda similar to the mongols. It was a band of desert folk who invaded and destroyed about every nation around them, and then built an unique civilisation, mixing their culture and those from the lands they invaded. I'm prolly sure that you'll never agree with that, but well, that's how I see things.

What I reallsy meant is that the Mongolian dominance cut Russia (or however you want to call it) from the West. And I think there is still a barrier maybe mainly in the heads of the western people. When the Russina attacked the Turks on Crimea I think they didn't expect that their Christian neighbors would help the Muslims. And the gap between Russia and the west goes through the centuries until today. You see communist USSR after WW1, cold war. Do not most of Western people think that the Russians are still kind of Mongols coming from the tundra?

[Ash]

The Wizard, Meneldil,
And I think there is still a barrier maybe mainly in the heads of the western people.

When the Russina attacked the Turks on Crimea I think they didn't expect that their Christian neighbors would help the Muslims.

And the gap between Russia and the west goes through the centuries until today. You see communist USSR after WW1, cold war.

Do not most of Western people think that the Russians are still kind of Mongols coming from the tundra?
Because of recent times, not because of something that happened over 700-800 years ago. People can't remember WWI, and are starting to forget WWII. Yet they're supposed to remember some invasion by Steppe people in far away central Asia?
I think you're overestimating the historical knowledge and interest of average Joe.

The Cremean war had nothing to do with religion, rather then France being worried for too much influence of Russia over the Balkans. And England being worried by an even more weakened Ottoman empire to keep the Russians in check (and indirectly keeping Russia out of Afghanistan).
On her part, Russia actually expected help from Austro-Hungary (a Christian empire) as a thank you for Russia's diplomatic intervention in Bosnia. The Habsburgs however told Russia to FOAD and even threatened to join the French and English in the end.
In conclusion, the Cremean war had nothing to do with religion.

Yeah that's geopolitics man, for the same reason there's a gap between the US and France for example.

Weren't Germans surprised at the Asian soldiers Russia fielded in WWI+II? I think I've read they weren't expecting Asians or something.
I think most people view Russians as a Slavic people, and don't really consider the Asians.
I could be wrong about this though.

[Ash]

The many enemies of the Mongolian empire destroyed most of them after their fall. The Mongols are one of the great catalysts of history. Like it or not, they changed the courses of history and laid the foundations of the European Renaissance -
Yeah well so was the plague of 1346-1350.
But I don't respect that either...:p

[Ash]

I do not actually see Mongolian holdings nowadays. I could however see the ruins of what they destroyed. Carthago was rebuilt. Palmyra was rebuilt. But nobody will ever rebuild Mesopotamia.
I think I saw on tv once about a ruined city which the Mongols had built right smack in the middle of the Steppes.
Mongols did build cities and apparently were quite tolerant towards different religions (the city was devided in religious quaters).
That said I'm not sure I'd place the Mongols under the "builder" catagory.

[Kommodus]

A lot of good points have been made on this thread, but I'd like to add one thing. It seems that a lot of people have pointed out a lot of peripheral achievements of the Mongols, but seem to be missing the big picture.

Of course the Mongol ascendancy was accompanied by advances in technology, politics, military techniques, and civilization in general. This is always the case with young, vigorous empires. The new ideas that allowed them to overcome neighboring peoples are spread over a great area, and universally adopted, while being combined in new, unique ways with ideas from the conquered cultures. The strong central rule has a unifying, stabilizing effect as well, enabling greater trade and exchange of ideas between separate cultures. Under the careful administration and protection of such rule, people are free to look beyond daily sustenance and protection, and civilization flourishes.

Every great ancient empire that I can think of has followed this pattern. Examples include Alexander's Macedonian empire, the Roman empire, the Muslim empire, Napoleon's French empire, and the British empire. In every case, one can easily point to significant achievements in culture, economics, politics, technology, art, military prowess, etc. After all, if they had no advantage over other peoples, how could they have become great at all? No one could seriously think that there was nothing to the great conquerors of history but ruthless barbarism - they each have many facets.

The problem with all of this, however, is the price of these achievements. Those conquered by the Mongols may have been short-sighted to view them as "demons," but can they really be blamed for that? The Mongols deliberately used military tactics that sowed fear among their enemies. Their terrifying, foreign appearance, their invincible tactics, and their custom of slaughtering without mercy when they encountered resistance, were all designed to terrify their opponents. Neither I nor any of you would have considered the Mongols' "benevolent administrative policies" while watching our families massacred and our civilization destroyed around us. To us, the Mongols would have appeared exactly as they did to the conquered people - as ruthless, inhuman barbarians. The Mongols did not give them any reason to think otherwise, even if some of the more outlandish tales of barbarism were exaggerated.

I am not singling out the Mongols here; I am fully aware that all of the great empires used similar tactics at one time or another. It's a very effective way to achieve power over others, and the Mongols knew exactly what they were doing. Nevertheless, this illustrates a fatal flaw in the very idea of "empire building."

This is the "big picture" I spoke of earlier, the deeper reality that goes far beyond technological and economic superficialities. In the process of empire building, dreadful things always occur. Entire cities, peoples, and cultures are destroyed, their achievements wiped out. Families are ripped apart, and millions of lives destroyed, with incalculable suffering. Libraries are burned and their contents lost forever, along with priceless architecture, art, and music.

It doesn't end there, either. Bitter rivalries are created between people groups, with irreversible consequences. Hatred and fear become solidified in people's minds and hearts, and passed on to all subsequent generations. Why do you think China closed itself off from the foreign world after the Mongols were thrown out? Do you think they would have done the same if they found foreigners to be peaceful, reasonable people? If this had been the case, they would have gladly welcomed intercultural exchange. Consider the irreparable damage the Mongols did to Muslim culture as well. A brief period of enlightenment under the Mongols quickly gave way to centuries of retarded development because of their conquests. This is the "big picture," people. This is the damnable legacy of the Mongols.

Is there any great empire that didn't eventually collapse, leaving destruction and loss in its wake? Consider Alexander's empire, which quickly gave way to constantly warring successor states. Consider the Roman empire, whose collapse precipitated the Dark Ages of Europe. Consider Africa, ruined by European colonists, still suffering the effects of that period to this day. Consider China, one of the most advanced, promising civilizations of its day, isolating itself because of the threat of foreign enemies like the Mongols, and dooming itself to retardation and a second-class status in the world. Is this not tragic? Does this not far outweigh the benefits brought by those who conquer to fulfull their idea of "greatness?"

Let people talk about advancements in economics and technology brought about by empire-building. Do we need those things so urgently that we are willing to subject ourselves to every atrocity known to man? Would it really set back civilization so much if we waited a little longer to develop technology that allowed us to kill each other a little more effectively? Wouldn't we eventually go abroad and explore the world to broaden our horizons, no matter who ruled it? Would we not have enough food and resources to meet our needs if we focused on ways of gaining these things other than taking them from others? Is any political system so wonderful that it's worth it to force it on others, who are content enough with their own? All these things could be achieved without empire-building. It might have taken a little longer, but the long-term conditions would've been far preferable.

The history of humanity portrays a backward, neurotic race. We spend so much of our time acquiring things we don't need, power at the expense of others and ourselves, and technologies that destroy rather than build. The Mongol empire is just another chapter in that tiresome story. You'd think we'd eventually learn, but we haven't, and while our technological development is vast, our moral development is scarcely ahead of where it was centuries ago - every step forward is accompanied by significant backward movement as well. I believe that we could find other ways besides what we've always known, but will we? Only time will tell.

[sharrukin]

As much as it hurts to say this, I have to agree with Byzantine Prince on this one.

The Mongols earned their reputation for savagery and terror. I have read accounts of the Mongols from people who were there as travellers or diplomats. The descriptions of Islamic slave owners (no charmers themselves) and there shock at the cruelty and behaviour of the mongols to slaves is detailed.

Revisionism is a current historical pastime and, unlike reviewing older assumptions and literary works, does harm as it relies on establishing a viewpoint and then finding the evidence to support it. If the evidence does not support the viewpoint then it is made to fit. Writers get attention, money and fame by making controversial claims, and the more controversial the better. That said, I want to be clear I am not suggesting this is what you are attempting to do, only that some sources need to be looked at carefully.

European, Chinese, Hindu, Persian, Arab and Slavic chroniclers and historians all described the Mongols in similar ways. They all fought and lost wars with other peoples whom they hated and did not describe them in this way. From early feudal times to the high middle ages, western europe has experienced many invasions by alien peoples. Avars, Magyars, Cumans, Vikings, Moslems and Turks. The contact was almost always hostile and the european view of these peoples was clearly negative. The Mongols are just as clearly set apart by the chroniclers. You can use the 'nature vs nurture' argument to explain why the Mongols acted as they did, but not the facts.

John of Plano Carpini’s Historia Mongolorum
Simon of Saint-Quentin
Roger of Torre Maggiore
C. De Bridia
Juvaini’s History of the World-Conqueror
Rashid ad-Din’s World History
Grigor of Akanc’ A History of the Nation of the Archers (the Mongols)
the Chinese Yuan Shih

Are they all lying or exaggerating? That is too much for me to believe given the number of sources and the number who had personal contact with the Mongols.

"In this plain there used to be many towns, but most of them were destroyed, so that the Tartars might graze there, for there were most excellent pasturages in that country." William of Robruck 1253-1255.

The whole land was filled with enemy troops, like locusts, who had no pity to spare the fallen, to show mercy to captives, or to pass over the exhausted: rather like savage beasts, they thirsted only for human blood.

In the spring of 1241, according to Thomas, large numbers of Hungarian men and women, old and young from the towns and cities of eastern Hungary were put to death in a series of mass killings.
The population of Pest, including those who sought sanctuary in the Dominican convent, were either slain or burned to death. During the winter, to instill fear in the Hungarians, the Mongols rode up and down the left bank of the Danube with the corpses of children impaled on lances, in Thomas’s words, “like afish on a spear.” He also reported mass killings of the most brutal sort in Croatia early 1242 and again in Bulgaria a few months later (See Segments A 5, C 10, D 1-4, E 5-7, F 2, I 4 and L 5).

After the beheading of the captives in Croatia, the Mongols permitted themselves a moment of rest and celebration. With a keen sense of irony, Thomas wrote:

The whole host of murderous people, taking their ease in camp camaraderie in the midst of those dead, began to dance and feast with great delight, and to shake with great mocking laughter, as though thesesfine men had performed some great deed.

“There was no respect for the feminine sex, no compassion for youth, no mercy for the aged. A single wicked people slaying everyone, they seemed not to be men but devils.”

“There are no poeple in the world that have such skill in warfare, that know so well how best in the struggle on the battlefield--whether by strength or by cunning--to fight and vanquish the enemy.”

Thomas of Spalato (Split), archdeacon of Spalato ; c.1245-1251 "His language is unremittingly harsh. The Mongols were a plague, their instincts savage and merciless. "As a people they lacked compassion and humanity."
Thomas heard it, he did not read it. No textual borrowings from other works have been identified. Thomas’s sources, therefore, apart from his own observations, must have been the numerous refugees who streamed into Spalato in 1242. Early in March 1242 the Mongols appeared before the walls of Spalato. They had ravaged the countryside, and the city was swollen with refugees. According to these eyewitness accounts once established in Hungary the Mongols, so our author reports, indulged in widespread, fearsome atrocities.

"merciless slaughter" perpetrated by the "nation of the archers"

Grigor of Akanc

In central asia city after city was stormed, the inhabitants massacred or forced to serve as catapult fodder for the advance troops of the Mongols against their own people. Fields and farmland were laid waste, wholesale massacres of the peasantry and the Qanez irrigation systems were destroyed.

Organization, discipline, mobility, and ruthlessness of purpose were the fundamental factors in his military successes. Massacres of defeated populations, with the resultant terror, were weapons he regularly used. His practice of summoning cities to surrender and of organizing the methodical slaughter of those who did not submit has been described as psychological warfare; but, although it was undoubtedly policy to sap resistance by fostering terror, massacre was used for its own sake. Mongol practice, especially in the war against Khwarezm, was to send agents to demoralize and divide the garrison and populace of an enemy city, mixing threats with promises. The Mongols' reputation for frightfulness often paralyzed their captives, who allowed themselves to be killed when resistance or flight was not impossible. Indeed, the Mongols were unaccountable. Resistance brought certain destruction, but at Balkh, now in Afghanistan, the population was slaughtered in spite of a prompt surrender, for tactical reasons.

Aleppo, Sidon, Bagdad, Samarkand, Bukhara, Balkh, Merv, Nishapur, Herat, Ghazni, Qom, Zanjan, Qazvin, Hamadan, Ryazan, Belgorod, Kiev, Moscow, Kolomna, Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Krakow, Sandomir and in China the list is endless and not completely known. This is by no means a complete list of the cities they destroyed, there are many others as well.

"The evidence, suggests a catastrophic population drop which was every bit the equivalent of the worst disasters in history. Studies of the Iraqi province of Diyala, near Baghdad, indicate that this province, which probably had almost 900,000 inhabitants in the days of the Abbasids ca. 800, supported only around 60,000 persons ca. 1300 under Mongol rule. This 90% drop in population put the province back to the population levels of 1500 B.C. Apparently, less than half the land which had been cultivated in that province under the Abbasids could still be farmed in 1300. Nor was this province an isolated or extreme case. An Ottoman census of 1519 in what is modern Syria and Palestine shows fewer than 600,000 people living in an area that had a population of about 4 million in the days of the Arab Empire."


Table 1. Population (in millions) for various regions at the beginning of 13th & 14th centuries

Region;

China: Mongol rule
AD 1200:115.00
AD 1300: 86.00
% Change: -25.2%

Korea: Mongol rule
AD 1200: 4.00
AD 1300: 3.00
% Change: -25.0%

Manchuria: Mongol rule
AD 1200: 4.50
AD 1300: 4.80
% Change: 1.1%

East Turkestan: Mongol rule
AD 1200: 2.20
AD 1300: 2.30
% Change: 4.5%

Iran: Mongol rule
AD 1200: 5.00
AD 1300: 3.50
% Change: -30.0%

Afghanistan: Mongol rule
AD 1200: 2.50
AD 1300: 1.75
% Change: -30.0%

Iraq: Mongol rule
AD 1200: 1.50
AD 1300: 1.00
% Change: -33.3%

Europe: Not Mongol rule
AD 1200: 58.00
AD 1300: 79.00
% Change: 36.2%

India: Not Mongol rule
AD 1200: 86.00
AD 1300: 91.00
% Change: 5.8%

[GoreBag]

I think there is simply more access to anti-Mongol information than there is to anti-Alexander material. Alexander was a Western character, Temujin was not. Alexander is a gret hero for killing tons of people, Temujin is a demon.

I've had this discussion with the Epirophile before and nothing has changed.

[sharrukin]

I think there is simply more access to anti-Mongol information than there is to anti-Alexander material. Alexander was a Western character, Temujin was not. Alexander is a gret hero for killing tons of people, Temujin is a demon.

I've had this discussion with the Epirophile before and nothing has changed.

Well I think Alexander the Great was probably a psychopath given the historical records we have on his behavoiur. He conducted his share of brutal massacres, anytime things did not go his way. In Sogdiana he massacred 120,000 people according to some estimates, following a revolt. He is known as 'Alexander the Accursed' to the Persians with good cause.

However the Mongols were considerably more brutal and systematic in their atrocities than a mad conqueror could ever be. With Alexander the Great massacres were the result of his getting angry or upset. With the Mongols it was widespread and business as usual. Only the argument that more could be gained by letting the commoners live than by slaughtering them had any impact.

[GoreBag]

I just think he had a small penis and something to prove. I mean, he was just a whelp; Philip did all the thinking and Alexander took the opportunity to capitalize. If anything, I think Genghis deserves more credit for being such tyrant and butchering all those people. "Same turd, different pile", only Genghis' pile was bigger.

[sharrukin]

I just think he had a small penis and something to prove. I mean, he was just a whelp; Philip did all the thinking and Alexander took the opportunity to capitalize. If anything, I think Genghis deserves more credit for being such tyrant and butchering all those people. "Same turd, different pile", only Genghis' pile was bigger.

Very eloquent!
Have you thought about running for public office? ~D

[GoreBag]

Very eloquent!
Have you thought about running for public office? ~D

In our country? Only if I can revive the rhinoceros party.

[sharrukin]

In our country? Only if I can revive the rhinoceros party.

They were always good for a laugh and helped keep the politicians from taking themselves too seriously.

You have my vote!

[Orda Khan]

I would argue that it is simply the fact that the Mongols were more successful than any other nation. Most conquerers enjoyed their share of cruelty, had any other conquerer achieved what Chingis Khan achieved perhaps he too would have partaken

.....Orda

[The Wizard]

Yes, I have crossed the proverbial sabres over the last days with a couple of idealists, and it has led me to believe, amongst other things, that in a sense many things are simply the larger version of something smaller, seemingly simpler: a company can be a model for a nation, for instance.

The same can be said about empires: an empire so large, so enormously expansive in such a short space of time undoubtedly has all the atrocities of a similar empire expanding at a slower rate, but then exponentially larger.

That is the thing about the Mongols that makes them so interesting: the many contradictions within their empire, their warmaking and their culture. Think of it for a moment: they were so much more than a usual 'steppe empire', yet just as vicious, ruthless and unrelenting. They committed so many things atrocious even by the standards of their time, yet were all the same rulers who brought prosperity and economical expansion to their subjects. There are many more of these contradictions, and it makes the subject 'Mongols' hugely interesting.

P.S. Kommodus, very nice post! Bit philosophical, bit too idealistic (bah, I'm a liberal right-winger, shoot me ~D), but the thought behind it is sound and I really enjoyed reading the post. Chapeau!

P.P.S. Sharrukin, good post as well. However, I do think you should be careful about letting your argument turn on figures from 800 years ago. The information we have about the time is too limited to start creating hard facts on them. Also, I genuinely believe that you really should read all the contemporary accounts with a big grain of salt, a sack as far as I'm concerned. No, it doesn't matter if it's Herodotos, Ammianus Marcellinus (agreed, less salt than the former), or Juvaini: they usually didn't write for truth at all...



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

would argue that it is simply the fact that the Mongols were more successful than any other nation. Most conquerers enjoyed their share of cruelty, had any other conquerer achieved what Chingis Khan achieved perhaps he too would have partaken
I agree with you, Orda.
Sharrukin, I'm a bit suprised, actually. I have little trust in any sort of contemporary historian, especially when talking about people from the steppes. From the Romans talking about the demonic Huns to the Westerners who often never met the Mongols talking about them in almost identical terms, not much changed.
Kommodus, I agree with you. But is it totally fare to subject people with such totally different moral values who lived so long ago to our condemnation?

[sharrukin]

P.P.S. Sharrukin, good post as well. However, I do think you should be careful about letting your argument turn on figures from 800 years ago. The information we have about the time is too limited to start creating hard facts on them. Also, I genuinely believe that you really should read all the contemporary accounts with a big grain of salt, a sack as far as I'm concerned. No, it doesn't matter if it's Herodotos, Ammianus Marcellinus (agreed, less salt than the former), or Juvaini: they usually didn't write for truth at all...

~Wiz




Sharrukin, I'm a bit suprised, actually. I have little trust in any sort of contemporary historian, especially when talking about people from the steppes. From the Romans talking about the demonic Huns to the Westerners who often never met the Mongols talking about them in almost identical terms, not much changed.



I agree with you both but this also applies to the 'secret history' does it not and my point was that a wide range of opinions by people not in contact with each other from different cultures and backgrounds all saying essentially the same things should be considered. Why do they all agree on this point?

EDIT;

Hmmm...let me expand on this a little. I like the steppe cultures and always have. Much about them is very interesting. However, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that historical peoples or cultures are in any way like 21st century sensitive guys. They have never even heard about the Renaissance or humanism. A feudal example of this difference in mentality would be the practice of digging up corpses of heretics and burning them. It sounds kinda mean spirited and you would think these guys are sick puppies with a bizarre need for vengeance. In fact however, to their way of thinking it was done out of kindness as the heretic was doomed to the flames of hell and by burning their body you drove out the demons giving them a chance of salvation. Now if you are alive and being burned at the stake it is probably not much of a consolation knowing they have only the best of intentions.

My point is that historical peoples and cultures do not think like we do! For many of these cultures the word for stranger and enemy had the same meaning and sometimes the same word was used for both. If they saw a stranger it often meant their life was at risk.

The steppe cultures had little use for farmers and certainly no respect. They might over time come to see some value in the goods that settled peoples can produce and perhaps even be convinced that killing them and stealing it are not the best ways of conducting themselves. If you add into that equation an imperial state like the Mongols you have a recipe for widescale brutality just as you saw with Macedon and Rome. The settled imperial powers at least had a use for captive cities, the Mongols, initially had none. Consider also the gap in language, culture and ethnicity and it is no surprise what the Mongols did.

But they did do it!

We cannot look back from the 21st century and judge them by our standards, because our standards simply didn't exist at the time.

[Steppe Merc]

I agree with you, we can't judge them by our standards. And I never doubt that the Mongols did some horrible stuff by our standards. And they do likely agree because the Mongols did do horrible things. But I don't think they were as bad as the Westerners said, or what other people did. Probably more widescale and pronounced, but as you said, we can't look at them and condem them.
And what you said makes a lot more sense now, and I feel pretty much the same way. But I have little trust in ancient and medival historians, but as you said, if they all say something, chances are there are some truths in it. But I don't really think it matters. I don't see how the Mongols are still talked about for their cruelty while the Westerners for their Crusade aren't. Actually I do see: the historians, again.

Sorry, my post probably doesn't make that much sense...

[GoreBag]

They were always good for a laugh and helped keep the politicians from taking themselves too seriously.

You have my vote!

Yesssss!

[sharrukin]

I agree with you, we can't judge them by our standards. And I never doubt that the Mongols did some horrible stuff by our standards. And they do likely agree because the Mongols did do horrible things. But I don't think they were as bad as the Westerners said, or what other people did. Probably more widescale and pronounced, but as you said, we can't look at them and condem them.
And what you said makes a lot more sense now, and I feel pretty much the same way. But I have little trust in ancient and medival historians, but as you said, if they all say something, chances are there are some truths in it. But I don't really think it matters. I don't see how the Mongols are still talked about for their cruelty while the Westerners for their Crusade aren't. Actually I do see: the historians, again.

Sorry, my post probably doesn't make that much sense...

But the crusaders where on a mission from god! They had the love of Jesus in their hearts and if they should profit from it, why then it is to the good that the faithful should prosper!

[AntiochusIII]

But the crusaders where on a mission from god! They had the love of Jesus in their hearts and if they should profit from it, why then it is to the good that the faithful should prosper!I know you're making a sarcasm on to historians. Right, RIGHT? ~;)

Also, I like Kommodus' post. Too idealist (I am an idealist myself), but reasonable. Moreover, many before you percieved the very same thing. Among them is no other than J.R.R. Tolkien, as in a small part in a Minas Tirith scene, when Gimli and Legolas were discussing the nature of the city and humans while waiting for something important. Tolkien had said the very same thing, which can be summarized as: "The greatest of the men are brought out in their early days, in which they will decayed overtime. However, even if they fall, they will rise again in the time and place in which you cannot possibly imagine. But in the end, do they achieve anything at all? This we do not know..." Of course, it's actually a conversation being summarized by me.

I think we achieve something, even through the one step forward and one step back of the world. We can always jump further to our front than to our back.

And as we jump further, we jump better. Though I wonder if this abundance of mass-destructive weapons in the world would let us jump further than ever to our backs.

The world moves faster everyday, though it can work backwards, as well.

And by this logic, single out the Mongols as evil is simply ignorance and usual "mass" tendency of understand one face of a coin.

[AFM984]

The mongols were extremly brutal.

I read the accounts of that time, which were written either at the time or a few years after. (Al bidayah Wa An Nihayah, Tarikh ibn Al Atheer......)

It is a fact that every muslim city they conquered they slaughterd the inhabitants, even if they agreed to surrender, in Bagdad alone they killed
800,000-1,800,000 I seriously doubt that there is a more brutal conquest.
Do you honestly think that they were feared so much for nothing?

When Holago sent messengers to egypt to ask for thier surrender, some of the people actually proposed to the sultan to leave for morroco.
No one in the entire history caused such fear. Even when you know you will be conquerd you don,t think about leaving so easily.

Make no mistake, & put your sentimates away, the mongols are responsible for slaughtering no less than 3000,000 muslims in a very very short period (a couple of years), & don't forget the christian casulaties & the jewish.

Before you glorify the mongols take note thier actions.

[Orda Khan]

Do you seriously believe these figures?
Steppe Merc has already touched upon the exaggerated reports by historians. The Moslem nations involved had been utterly destroyed, they could not comprehend such a thing. Wholesale massacre followed each conquest, but on the scale that you suggest?
I have found that historians certainly enjoy telling a colourful story and I have learned to accept the figures they quote with a pinch of salt. That the cities of this area actually contained the population numbers is debatable.

........Orda

[AFM984]

My dear friend Orda Khan,

Just because you think that these figures are an exagerration doesn't mean they are.

You seem very sentimental about the subject. Think with me, Mesopotemia is a very very fertile land, & Bagdad was propably the biggest city in the world at the time (may be 2nd to Constantinopole), & when I talked of the mongol invasion of the muslim teritories I meant all of it from The borders of China to Iraq.

If you honestly think that the casualties in the cities in this vast & fertile region Does not mount to 3 Millions, then you are being sentimental.

I read once that when the Muslims Captuerd Constantinopole They Enslaved 500,000 of the inhabitants, which acording to the same source ( a christian source not a muslim source), is half the population.
Now Constantinopole "That name is VERY long ;)" Was Sacked before, & the Economy was Horrible at the time & still it had 1 million in it.

Why is it doubtful when it is a Muslim source, & not the case when it is a Christian one?

I hope that you were not offended in any way, ~:)

Still I stick to my openion.


Ahmad F.M

_________________________________________________________________

This is AN edit:

Guys I think that the standard that we measure the cruelty of the mongols in is that they killed all the inhabitants in almost all the cities they conquered, that was extremly brutal even on the standards of the time, No one ever caused such panic & fear As the mongols, & I think that is what they had in mind when they killed the conquered inhabitants.
I'm not judging them, no one should, they did what they thaught was right according to their culture. But that does not change the fact that they were Extremly brutal.

[AntiochusIII]

My dear friend Orda Khan,

Just because you think that these figures are an exagerration doesn't mean they are.

You seem very sentimental about the subject. Think with me, Mesopotemia is a very very fertile land, & Bagdad was propably the biggest city in the world at the time (may be 2nd to Constantinopole), & when I talked of the mongol invasion of the muslim teritories I meant all of it from The borders of China to Iraq.

If you honestly think that the casualties in the cities in this vast & fertile region Does not mount to 3 Millions, then you are being sentimental.

I read once that when the Muslims Captuerd Constantinopole They Enslaved 500,000 of the inhabitants, which acording to the same source ( a christian source not a muslim source), is half the population.
Now Constantinopole "That name is VERY long ;)" Was Sacked before, & the Economy was Horrible at the time & still it had 1 million in it.

Why is it doubtful when it is a Muslim source, & not the case when it is a Christian one?

I hope that you were not offended in any way, ~:)

Still I stick to my openion.


Ahmad F.M

_________________________________________________________________

This is AN edit:

Guys I think that the standard that we measure the cruelty of the mongols in is that they killed all the inhabitants in almost all the cities they conquered, that was extremly brutal even on the standards of the time, No one ever caused such panic & fear As the mongols, & I think that is what they had in mind when they killed the conquered inhabitants.
I'm not judging them, no one should, they did what they thaught was right according to their culture. But that does not change the fact that they were Extremly brutal.Constantinople by the time it was conquered by Mehmed II the Conqueror had about 100000 citizens by modern estimates, for your information. This may tell the level of exaggeration done by historians who had something against those who're writing against - I mean, look at Herodotus! 1 million Persians? Do you think that's true?

By the way, Baghdad was not the largest city. That was, I think, in Song China, since Jin China was devastated.

Edit: Oh, don't want to flame but... you're echoing everything stereotype about the Mongols. Don't you know that Carthage probably had about five to seven hundred thousand inhabitants that were slaughtered after Rome's conquest, with the last remaining fifty thousands enslaved?

They were NOT the only ones doing this. Cruelty was usual in most warfares. The Mongols committed such massacre as it was their tactics and policy: surrender - you survive - fight - you die. It was used to conquer the world.

Mesopotamia was not vast, even if it was fertile. Look at the map, from the western edge of Iran, through to the edge of China, omitting India, was a countless passage of sands in which fertile lands were few.

[Byzantine Prince]

I don't think we are in any position to say if any army was as big or as small or ruthless as anyone here says. How do you know that the Persians couldn't recruit 1,000,000 in the army? Even though Herodotus only mentions 500,000, lol.


The Mongols though were particularly ruthless in that they killed everyone they ever met weather they were infant, woman, monk, or king. They were to systematically destroy every nation so they could steal more gold and when it would run out they would raid more. Hell they even invaded Japan!!! No other country or nation has been so bloodthursty as them. I don't think even the Nazis were as savage.

Why are you all so against what people who have actually lived through all this wrote? Why are insulted by it even. You remind me of the holocaust deniers, "well the victors write history so they lie", yeah right, then where did all the jews go!!?!??!?!? All the Chinese and Iranians in the Mongol's case?!??!

[AFM984]

I am wrong, the numbers could be wrong, BUT hear me:

It is brutal to massacre the inhabitants of a conquered city, I'm sure you agree to that, right?
lets say that I conquered a town that had 1000 people in it, & I killed 800 of them, On the standards of the time( medieval) do you think that what I did is brutal?

Lets say that I did that to 100 towns what do you think of me?

Lets say that I negotiated with the leader of the town to surrender it & the poplace will be safe, & when I entered the town I slaughtered the populace, What do you think of me?

The Numbers, might be an exagerration, But the acts are definatly not.

[Colovion]

The Mongols though were particularly ruthless in that they killed everyone they ever met weather they were infant, woman, monk, or king. They were to systematically destroy every nation so they could steal more gold and when it would run out they would raid more. Hell they even invaded Japan!!! No other country or nation has been so bloodthursty as them. I don't think even the Nazis were as savage.

False. Not just partially, totally.

Just read some history on the Mongols before you actually put words like this down.

I realize that western education doesn't train you to look at your subjects before you gain opinions about them, but I implore you to at least try reading a book - such as [i]March of the Barbarians]/i] by Harold Lamb, which is drawn from records from all sides of the world to draw the most clear and concise picture of how the Mongols' empire was run and how the conquests were made.

Before I read a few things on the Mongol Empire and the Khans, I had the same inclination as you - to assume that they were all barbaric horsemen who were unfeeling beasts of men with uncountable numbers who slaughtered everyone and everything no matter what. This is a total fabrication, built out of accounts from scared peasants and frightened rulers in Western Europe who never experienced the Mongols but for scant glances through the eyes of Hungarian or otherwise defeated Europeans who resisted the Mongol Hordes.

Poppycock.

[Colovion]

Lets say that I negotiated with the leader of the town to surrender it & the poplace will be safe, & when I entered the town I slaughtered the populace, What do you think of me?

The Numbers, might be an exagerration, But the acts are definatly not.

Name a time when a Mongol broke his promise when dealing with an enemy populace

come back with facts, not wild assumptions

[The Wizard]

Now, AFM984, I read somewhere in your various posts that Constantinople, when taken by Mehmed il-Fatih, had a population of one million.

Now, by all accounts, that is a gross, so very gross exaggeration.

Take into account that the city was impoverished by that time. Not only did the Italians control each and every trade route in and around the city, but the farms that were the foundation for each economy at the time had regressed to great estates led by noblemen, which were inefficient for tax income since tax collectors were simply bought off. No income equals no trade fleet, and to add that to the exorbitant amount of money spent by the Byzantine court to maintain the illusion of grandeur and one can understand the bad state the city was in.

As a result, there was no livelihood in living inside the city. Of the 400,000 that had lived in the city at its peak, only about 10,000 remained when it finally fell. Mehmed had to start an entire state-sponsored immigration program to fill the city up again, with Armenians, Jews and of course Turks.

And the city fell before? To the Fourth Crusade, you mean? Hardly any great slaughter -- only very bad management of the place.

Since your assumption on Constantinople and Mehmed's taking of the city, which was very 'soft' by the standards of the time, is wrong, I very much doubt your assumptions on Baghdad and Mesopotamia. Sure, there was slaughter and mayhem and plundering, perhaps to a greater extent than was usual of the time, but methinks the greatest hurt done to the city was when good ol' Timur sacked the city brutally twice in only a few years.



~Wiz

[Orda Khan]

Since I was replying to figures quoted in a post, I did not expand and include other sources. In Russia and Europe also, the Mongols were demonised by people who could not comprehend the defeats they suffered. As has already been pointed out, the Mongols were not alone where cruelty was concerned and the reason they have been singled out in such a way is the fact they were so successful.

.......And no, I am not sentimental about this subject, it is one I have researched in great detail

.....Orda

[Browning]

Before I read a few things on the Mongol Empire and the Khans, I had the same inclination as you - to assume that they were all barbaric horsemen who were unfeeling beasts of men with uncountable numbers who slaughtered everyone and everything no matter what. This is a total fabrication, built out of accounts from scared peasants and frightened rulers in Western Europe who never experienced the Mongols but for scant glances through the eyes of Hungarian or otherwise defeated Europeans who resisted the Mongol Hordes.

Poppycock.
Those who tried to resist and failed didn't have the opportunity to tell the story, which is significant in itself.

What was the population of Hungarian cities after the Mongols walked through the country? German... it had to be repopulated from abroad. What was the population of the Polish cities after the Mongols walked through the country? German, it had to be repopulated from abroad. What was the population of the Russian cities after the Mongols walked in? [... erased due to §12 pt 3 of the Law on Control of Publications and Public Events...]

Now tell me why this was not the case when the Arabs or Turks conquered places, or why the whole France was not converted to desert during the 100 Years War, or why did the population of England survive the War of Two Roses unscratched, or how the warfare by Diadochi looked like...

[AFM984]

I Did not assume anything, I read everything that I wrote, I did not write this based on assumption.

As for the times that the mongols broke their promise:
1-Bukhara.
2-Samargand
3-Muro
That is what I read from the Book (The start & the End), its arabic & written 700 years ago.

If the historians of the earlier times were exagerrating always, do you think that 1000 years from now people would say " Oh those historians from the petrol age are biased & exaggerating all the time, I mean do you believe the Number of casualties in WWI, & WWII, they are even greater than WWIII"

Are all the historians exagerrating?
_______________________________________
As I said in my earlier post Put the numbers aside, I was wrong to bring them in, & look at their acts,

They were not conquerers as much as raiders, the amount of devestation they caused is immense,

No conuest ever in the history of the world caused such destruction & Panic as this one did.


Ahmad,

[Steppe Merc]

Why is it doubtful when it is a Muslim source, & not the case when it is a Christian one?
I doubt all sources. I doubt the Greeks, the Romans, Christians, and Muslims. If anything, I trust the Muslims the most, as they had the most contact with the people I'm concerened with. Even so, I never trust them one hundred percent.

Are all the historians exagerrating?
Frankly I think so, especially when it comes to steppe people in general. But as I said, Muslims usually were better when it came to the Turkic peoples, and most other matters.

Now tell me why this was not the case when the Arabs or Turks conquered places, or why the whole France was not converted to desert during the 100 Years War, or why did the population of England survive the War of Two Roses unscratched, or how the warfare by Diadochi looked like...
Different cultures. Totally different style of warfare. Whenever two radiccaly different stlyes clash, it's always more bloody than if two similar cultures fight. The Diadochi all fought the same, and were related. But when the steppe people fight settled, it's always more bloody due to the totally different styles of warfare. The settled couldn't understand how to fight them, either when invading (Darius vs. Scythians) or defending (pretty much any Mongol battle...)


As for the times that the mongols broke their promise:
1-Bukhara.
2-Samargand
3-Muro
Perhaps. But, I think lying and breaking the promises were committed by all, Muslim, Christian and Pagan.


Those who tried to resist and failed didn't have the opportunity to tell the story, which is significant in itself.
They obviously did, for the Mongols didn't write the histories that we have today, the defeated did...

[AntiochusIII]

Those who tried to resist and failed didn't have the opportunity to tell the story, which is significant in itself.Yes, how impressively effective the Mongolian warfare was. Did you know they actually spared those who surrender, and that system of "surrender: live and prosper, or fight: die a horrible death" was their goal in their conquests in the first place? Most forces use them.


What was the population of Hungarian cities after the Mongols walked through the country? German... it had to be repopulated from abroad. What was the population of the Polish cities after the Mongols walked through the country? German, it had to be repopulated from abroad. What was the population of the Russian cities after the Mongols walked in? [... erased due to §12 pt 3 of the Law on Control of Publications and Public Events...]So, the Polish were Germans, according to you? The Magyar Hungarians died off beneath Mongolian hoofs, too?


Now tell me why this was not the case when the Arabs or Turks conquered places, or why the whole France was not converted to desert during the 100 Years War, or why did the population of England survive the War of Two Roses unscratched, or how the warfare by Diadochi looked like...Arabs or Turks were settled, and too few in number to imagine something like that beneficial. France fought desperately and England never had enough resources for real conquests, much less large-scale effective massacre. They do slaughtered each other, by the way. Also, the English goal was to convert France into the king's land, not a weakened protectorate under the Khans. Diadochi warfare was destructive, but limited in scope and area. The Syrian Wars, fought on limited ground across the Levant, were bloody hell of a bloodbath concerning the troops, by the way (The First Punic War pales in comparison.) And those left two mightiest empires in the known world utterly weakened. Even then, their goals were turning the resources of conquered opponents into theirs, not utterly subjugate their foes. And, as has been said before, steppe tactics, perfected by the Mongols, tend to be extremely effective on a battlefield and tend to rely on massacre to control such vast lands effectively.

If cruelty because they're cruel, and not on figures, look no further than the holy crusaders of "The Franks."