I was wondering...

[Kraxis]

I actually think it would be a boon to an actor if could accurately prortray a really nasty guy, one who loved being it. And yes Genghis Khan was one such man. You need not show a lot of killing, merely a village burning in the background and very satisfied Mongols.
The problem arises that the current Mongols might not like the way we would portray their forefathers as such men. It could quickly become a widespread view that it was merely done because we had to have something to hate him for, as we would not allow an easterner to be seen as greater than our own (the good old racist argument).

Meneldil, what you speak of are the ones after Genghis, he himself despised such 'cultured' behaviour as weak. Under him it was rather deadly. Remember the mountains of skulls and the sack of Baghdad, such things did not come from nothing as the Europemans themselves were nasty, but here come a people who were worse than the Europeans.
The Mongols were, though, quickly absorbed into the local culture and they lost themselves, and as such they became 'merely' a new local elite.
When they settled down it was great for everyone, they lost that hard edge in war and became more like those they met (less likely to be as cruel as they once had been).

[Krusader]

Another good thing about the Mongols was that after they had conquered and forged their empire, it was very safe to travel across their empire. There were virtually no bandits, and anyone attempting to make a career as highwaymen, would quickly be killed by the Mongols.

And the Mongols allowed their subjects to worship any god or gods they desired.

Still. The Mongols were nasty

[Rosacrux redux]

Hmm... the Mongols were definitely not civilized, nor comparable with anyone - especially the Muslims. One of their first conquests was China (where they slaughtered a rather large percentage of the inhabitants - about 7 to 11%, according to modern estimates) and that' s where their alleged "culture" comes from - mocking the most advanced culture you find on your path of looting, raping and destroying, is hardly "culture" by itself.

The Mongols have completely annihilated more than 200 large settlements - every man, woman, kid, and animal would die in those. They have completely erased from the face of the planet two large and prosperous cultures (Xsi Xsia and ...what was the other?) by slaughtering every man, woman and chil. They would carry with them in battle thousands of prisoners and force them to march in front of their army, so they would absorb the brunt of the enemy attack. They would kill every person in a city that would resist them. Glorious cities, with maybe even hundreds of thousands of inhabitants that faced the Mongols, were rendered into mere rabble, or - if they were lucky - to a little village population-wise ...

...I mean, if all that ain't barbarism, then we've lost any sense of proportion, haven't we? I would call the slaughter of more than 20 million people (and that's only in Chinghis's conquest) a rather hefty price to pay to be able to travel from Persia to Korea unhindered.

And I am quite sure that much of the backwardness of Asia can be contributed to the Mongols. When they started conquering, Asia was way ahead of Europe. When they finished with it... Europe was catching on and the only Asian culture that still was on the rise, where the Ottomans, and they were outside the Mongolian sphere of inlfluence.

[Watchman]

...although the Ottomans apparently started out as Turkish refugees from Mongol territory. Anyway, the fact is that even amongst the infamously rapacious steppe nomads, who were always reviled by their settled neighbors for their penchance for pillage and devastation, the Mongols were a class by themselves. Just about everyone else during the period only engaged in massacres and wholesale slaughter as a side effect of the unavoidable pillaging the troops indulged in, and it was normally of a very localized nature (such as the sack of any city taken by storm).

The Mongols intentionally annihilated entire cities and depopulated whole regions as cautionary examples.

Of course, a good director could undoubtly make a pretty good movie that simply waves off any modern sensibilities and takes the steppe marauders as they were; they themselves saw nothing wrong with any of it, after all, and among themselves had quite sophisticated and reasonably palatable codes of conduct. It could be treated as a sort of study on the internal logic of the sort of archaic barbarism modern sensibilities have - thankfully - outgrown. If properly done, the lack of unperiodic moralism should only add to the horror.

Look at movies like Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal and the like to witness the basic point of that approach.

I'm none too convinced Hollywood could manage it, though; moral ambiguity isn't the strong point of the spectacle movies coming out of there.

[Rosacrux redux]

Ah, yes. The good'ole "Black and White" kindergarten morals that made Hollyweird what it is now.

Why would they stray from that recipe? I mean, look at Alexander. Stone didn't subscribe into the "Black-White" morals and he got massacred (a-la Chinghiz?) by all American critics... oh, well, maybe the fact that the film wasn't really much, did also play a part at it... Oh, wait. There is Gang of New York too. Excellent film (IMHO) but it again missed the "Black vs White" point, portraying everybody in shades of grey... and it went down like the Titanic (the ship, not the film) in the American box office. Maybe it's not Hollyweird, but the immature audience, methinks.

Hmm... can you think of one director that could handle the history in such a way (and has sufficient control over his work - final cut, that is) ? Scorceze, perhaps? He's not big on history, but all his films are handling shades of grey and glorify the underworld and the margins. And he is strong enough to do a film the way he wants it.

Oh, if only Kubrik was alive and sane...

[DemonArchangel]

There was a chinese movie on Genghis Khan.
Beautiful, beautiful combat (although too much flying)

Brutal too.

[Meneldil]

Well, Rosacrux, though I agree Mongols burnt a whole lot of cities, killed a huge number of people, I have to disagree about the fact they were less civilised than other.

Just have a look at the muslim conquest, it was the exact same thing (in lesser proportion). Muslims burnt cities, destroyed whole civilisations (Sassanid Persia ? Copte Aegyptia ?) killed a whole lot of innocents, and almost destroyed the Eastern Roman empire, though eventually they built the most advanced civilisation around mediterranea. However, can we say that they were not civilised ? Obviously not.
They took the best part from each civilisation they conquered, and that's what allowed them to be more advanced than christians.
Basically, that's what Mongols have done 800 years laters.

I don't want to be annoying or what, but I think you're opinion is kinda biased.
My sources might be wrong (though I doubt it), but I've read a lot of books on that topic. Many christians or muslims travellers (Marco Polo being one of them) who visited mongols' territories were simply astonished by their culture and their way of life.

And as I said in my previous post, (and from what I've understood from my readings) Mongols thought they were superior to other peoples (that's mostly why they didn't care about killing loads of innocents if that would save one of them) and that they were supposed to rule over the whole known world. Is that what you would expect from an uncivilised culture ?

[The Wizard]

And I am quite sure that much of the backwardness of Asia can be contributed to the Mongols. When they started conquering, Asia was way ahead of Europe. When they finished with it... Europe was catching on and the only Asian culture that still was on the rise, where the Ottomans, and they were outside the Mongolian sphere of inlfluence.

You may be quite sure, but you're not right.

For starters, slaughters by medieval armies cannot have been so amazingly large-scale that it could have led to the huge economical and cultural decline that you propose. Such results by war alone are only possible since the Great War.

No, the reason must be searched for elsewhere, and it is quite easily found. The reason that Asia suffered such widespread and great decline in prosperity is the Black Death, from which Europe recovered but Asia did not.

You see, whereas the Europeans reacted to the Black Death with widespread hysterica, urban unrest and revolution, the people of Iran, Arabia and Central Asia reacted by going back to ancient family and tribal traditions and loyalty, reducing birthrates and (presumably, at least ) hoped for better times. Agriculture and trade retreated as the population decreased. Huge areas reverted to nomadism, and as proof this worked, bedouins, who had always been nomads, seem to have survived the plague quite well.

Into this, plus the chaos caused by the desintegration of the Mongol successor states (which did not cause huge devastation, at least not anywhere near the decline caused by the Black Death) in the mid-14th century, was born Timur-i-Lenk. His native Transoxania, paradoxically, was experiencing a revival, and under such a brilliant general it was only logical that the surrounding regions were attacked.

Timur's campaigns, however, were inefficient in leaving the enemy defeated, and he had to return to regions like Iran multiple times to put down rebellions, right to his death in 1405. Since he was a ruthless and bloodthirsty man, he tended to try to crush his enemies through fear alone. As proven, that did not work. This points out that the Mongols were more advanced in administration, and more respected and loved, than a man who lived approx. 200 years later.

The bad administration of and the hate for Tamerlane also resulted in the fact that his great empire fell apart immediately after his death, and the same happened to his successors. Every time a Timurid died, there would be a civil war over his territory. Timur's successors did not lack in ability, but the foundation left by Timur himself was too weak to be useful.

While Europe eventually recovered, Asia could not, for it had to begin anew from becoming nomadic. Asia had to be repopulated and de-nomadisized. This was not exactly easy with the violent wars fought between the Timurids, Uzbhegs, Afghans, Persians and the exploitation by the Europeans (we're talking 18th century now). Weak dynasties, plus a strongly deminished population and therefore deminished economy, lead to the fact that Asia was weak and open for exploitation by European powers such as Russia, France and Britain. This kept them weak, because strong powers could not be profitable.

The latterly mentioned is similar to the dynastical struggles of Sassanid Persia in the late 5th and the 6th centuries, before the ascension of Khusrau Anushirivan. Byzantium was interested in a strong Persia to keep off the nomadical peoples moving about, such as the Chionite Ephtalites and the Huns.

So: Asia became weak do to the reaction of the people there to the Black Death, which on the long term was bad. As opposed to the European reaction to the Black Death, which on a short term cost more lives but on the long term guaranteed a quicker recovery. Add this to the many struggles between the Timurids, and the fact that the Timurids were replaced by the backward Uzbhegs, plus the violent and frequent wars between Persia, the Uzbhegs and the Afghans, because of which the nations in question were weakened sufficiently to be easily manipulated and exploited and therefore kept weak by the European powers, who had recovered quickly from the Black Death and due to the Mongol Silk Road recieved huge amounts of technology from the East, more than ever before.

The Mongols therefore contributed greatly not only to the start of the Rennaissance, but also to the prosperity of the places they conquered. The safety that the Khakhan promoted, and the good administration and legislation of the Mongols, plus their will to cooperate with subjugated peoples, led to a great revival of economic prosperity under Mongol supervision. Sometimes this took a while, such as in the Il-Khanate, but eventually it would prove to be positive, only to be destroyed by Timur-i-Lenk (widely regarded in his day as a Mongol, as his troops were, which explains a lot of the belief in the solely negative effect of the Mongols on conquered territory) and the Black Death before him.



~Wiz

[The Wizard]

I actually think it would be a boon to an actor if could accurately prortray a really nasty guy, one who loved being it. And yes Genghis Khan was one such man. You need not show a lot of killing, merely a village burning in the background and very satisfied Mongols.
The problem arises that the current Mongols might not like the way we would portray their forefathers as such men. It could quickly become a widespread view that it was merely done because we had to have something to hate him for, as we would not allow an easterner to be seen as greater than our own (the good old racist argument).

Meneldil, what you speak of are the ones after Genghis, he himself despised such 'cultured' behaviour as weak. Under him it was rather deadly. Remember the mountains of skulls and the sack of Baghdad, such things did not come from nothing as the Europemans themselves were nasty, but here come a people who were worse than the Europeans.
The Mongols were, though, quickly absorbed into the local culture and they lost themselves, and as such they became 'merely' a new local elite.
When they settled down it was great for everyone, they lost that hard edge in war and became more like those they met (less likely to be as cruel as they once had been).

Actually, Chingis Khan was not such a very bloodthirsty man as everyone seems to think. When he attacked Persia -- his most notorious and bloody campaign -- it was after the Khwarizmians had slain his emissaries coming in peace, and sent their heads back. Chingis replied by an invasion. Each and every action he ever undertook, with the possible exception of his very early campaigns, were as a result of someone doing him wrong.

Also, put the Mongol killings in perspective for once. That people lived in one of the harshest climates on the planet; it is no wonder that they were able to survive the Russian winter, and not only that, but also conquer most of the country during it! It was a harsh life, for tough people. Only the strongest survived. Intertribal warfare was concluded by the victors by slaughtering the enemies menfolk and cattle, to make sure they wouldn't return and take vengeance, for fortunes on the steppes could change as swiftly as the directions of the wind.

With that background, it is actually quite logical that they undertook such brutal actions as the subjugation of the rebellious Qara-Qitai, or such great slaughterings as in Persia. Of course, this does not justify their actions, but there was no need for that in those days. An idea of 'universal human rights' has only meeted widespread support since after the great wars of the 20th century, even though its first proposal was by Cyrus the Great way back in the 540s BC.

Also, towers of skulls? That is a myth concerning Chingis Khan. In fact, it stems from a man who wished to eminate that same aura of frightened respect that Chingis seemed to possess, and a man who actually took real pleasure in killing and slaughtering: Timur-i-Lenk, Tamerlane. Understandably, the two have been mixed up in European culture, for the two were not much different in the eyes of the Europeans, especially since Timur claimed descent from Chingis Khan (the good man today has approx. 12 million descendants). It was Timur who built these gruesome structures as a warning to any who dared to oppose him. Not that it worked; Timur had to return many times to a formerly 'conquered' region to subjugate it again after it had rebelled.

Chingis was a much more able administrator, and with the administrative and legislative system he devised at the khuriltai on the banks of the Onon river in 1206, the Mongols were able to hold on to lands for much longer than their 'successor', Timur, whom's empire collapsed quickly after his death, his heirs only able to hold on to pieces of it. Of course, when the Khakhan became more interested in China (Qubilai) and after a while dropped the title Khakhan altogether in favor of 'Yuan emperor', the empire dissolved into a number of independent states.



~Wiz

[BalkanTourist]

Rosacrux, you seem very interested in the matter of conquest. May I suggest a book that might be of interest - "Conquest and Cultures" by Thomas Sowell. I am reading it right now. Trust me it's a very interesting book.

[BalkanTourist]

"Also, put the Mongol killings in perspective for once. That people lived in one of the harshest climates on the planet; it is no wonder that they were able to survive the Russian winter, and not only that, but also conquer most of the country during it! It was a harsh life, for tough people. Only the strongest survived. Intertribal warfare was concluded by the victors by slaughtering the enemies menfolk and cattle, to make sure they wouldn't return and take vengeance, for fortunes on the steppes could change as swiftly as the directions of the wind."

I second that! And for that they get my respect. What the mongols did does not need approval but requires respect nevertheless.

[Byzantine Prince]

Also, put the Mongol killings in perspective for once. That people lived in one of the harshest climates on the planet; it is no wonder that they were able to survive the Russian winter, and not only that, but also conquer most of the country during it! It was a harsh life, for tough people. Only the strongest survived. Intertribal warfare was concluded by the victors by slaughtering the enemies menfolk and cattle, to make sure they wouldn't return and take vengeance, for fortunes on the steppes could change as swiftly as the directions of the wind.

AHH, if only that was true. The Mongols were the viscious and brutal to every single human or animal being. They would kill children, seniors, cats, dogs, cattle, men, women, infants. The list goes on. This is all from a book I've read about nomad people. I'm not just saying for the sake... you know.

Actually, Chingis Khan was not such a very bloodthirsty man as everyone seems to think.HAHAHA!! When he attacked Persia -- his most notorious and bloody campaign -- it was after the Khwarizmians had slain his emissaries coming in peace, and sent their heads back. Chingis replied by an invasion. Each and every action he ever undertook, with the possible exception of his very early campaigns, were as a result of someone doing him wrong.

Yeah sure, and Hitler was also a good man right? Don't kid yourself, those emissaries were sent to demand a surrender of the entire empire. What would you do if a bunch nomads walked in and asked you to give them everything or else you die!!?!?

Also, towers of skulls? That is a myth concerning Chingis Khan.

Not really. People would visit these towns that were run over by the Mongols and they would write about how you couldn't walk in there because it smelled so bad.



Also another thing. Did you know that Hitler himself modelled his invasion of eastern Europe after the mongols. Yeah he looked at history books and that's how he got his idea to exterminate everyone just like the mongols to the same people so long ago.

[The Wizard]

AHH, if only that was true. The Mongols were the viscious and brutal to every single human or animal being. They would kill children, seniors, cats, dogs, cattle, men, women, infants. The list goes on. This is all from a book I've read about nomad people. I'm not just saying for the sake... you know.

Probably an exaggerated account of the practice. You need only slaughter the menfolk and the cattle and take the women, leave the children (perhaps take them). It's all good for your tribe -- no more threat, more women, more slaves to sell, which means more money and therefore more power! Why slaughter them all? And don't come with 'because they like to', because I will prove to you next that Chingis Khan was not a bloodthirsty man, but rather a man who used traditional nomadic ways to defeat his enemy. Oh sure, he had his occasional outbursts, but as you will see, most of his statements embody his essentially logical approach to declaring war -- "you do me wrong, I do you wrong".

"Genghis Khan told them that they, the common people, were not at fault, that high-ranking people among them had committed great sins that inspired God to send him and his army as punishment."

This is what Chingis said to the people of Bukhara, according to a contemporary source, when they surrendered. The surrender happened after the siege, but the city was not annihalated, and their surrender was accepted immediately. Chingis Khan, in the campaign into Persia, spared those that surrendered without a fight. Those that did not were attacked and killed. Seems pretty logical to me, especially in the context of the day.

He was, above all, a shrewd ruler, playing off enemies against each other, sparing those who surrendered, and destroying those who chose to fought. Seeing such destruction as at Samarqand, and then with the knowledge that those who had not resisted had been spared, would have prompted many a man to surrender rather than fight. It's a principle that the Roman emperor Aurelian also used, as did Alexander the Great. Now, you might be able to say that their slaughterings were not as great, but what did Alexander face? Great, heavily populated empires like the Khwarezm-shah Empire? No, small, divided principalities such as India. Great cities such as Babylon surrendered to the new Great King and were spared. Persepolis was even burned for no particular reason! Aurelian, also, employed the entire principle on a smaller scale, so to say. At first he spared Palmyra when it surrendered after Zenobia's attempted flight to Palmyra, but when it rebelled again it was demolished.

Yeah sure, and Hitler was also a good man right? Don't kid yourself, those emissaries were sent to demand a surrender of the entire empire. What would you do if a bunch nomads walked in and asked you to give them everything or else you die!!?!?

I would like to see your proof of this. Every single account I have read about the beginning of the invasion, except those that were obviously biased, states that a Khwarizmian governor killed a Mongolian caravan passing through his lands. Chingis Khan sent emissaries to demand explanation and the punishing of the governor in question, most favorably by the Mongols themselves. Instead, his emissaries were humiliated by having their leader killed and the others' beards burned off, and then sent back to Chingis. This was, of course, an outrage and Chingis declared war.

Not really. People would visit these towns that were run over by the Mongols and they would write about how you couldn't walk in there because it smelled so bad.

I repeat: towers built out of skulls is a myth about the Mongols born out of what the Timurids did. People confused the two and that is how the modern myth was born.

Also another thing. Did you know that Hitler himself modelled his invasion of eastern Europe after the mongols. Yeah he looked at history books and that's how he got his idea to exterminate everyone just like the mongols to the same people so long ago.

I doubt that. Besides, how can you attribute a man's lust for killing simply to the fact that he read a book about the Mongols? I read a book about them, but do I want to kill each and every Jew I come across? No. The fact that he did so was probably a product of his own twisted, sick mind.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux redux]

Wizard

I am afraid your admiration of the Mongols is distorting your view towards them. You do admit that they were irredeemably cruel and savage, yet you think that’s justified because …they were nomads and lived in harsh condition?????

Yes, and Hitler wasn’t really responsible for the holocaust, because he had a traumatic child age.

Also, you might attribute the fall of the East to the plague, which was quite worse in Europe, btw and not all East experienced the plague anyway – China didn’t. India didn’t. Why did they stay behind? I find your reaction theory rather unfounded as well. I think that’s wrong as well. A couple other posters have illustrated how the Mongols destroyed the infrastructure and the fact that they depopulated Asia is not my speculation but a well-established historical fact.

You might like the Mongols because they were great warriors and such. But that shouldn’t hinder you from understanding that they were also the worst thing that happened to humanity ever.

BalkanTurist

Thanks for the suggestion. I am not extremely keen on conquests per se, I am more into critical interpretation of them and scientific evaluation of the various factors that preceded the conquest and of course of the consequences for all parts involved.

If the book you suggest is anything like what I described, I'll look it up.