The Mongol Empire a product of Circumstance?

[Innocentius]

Hmm, taking advantage of weaknesses... Isn't that one of the major marks of a great general/commander? Exploiting weakness while avoiding strengths?

Yes, and I don't think anyone has spoken against that in this thread.

Now certainly, circumstances DO play a PART in everything. However, to use that as an excuse to discredit/dismiss every single major achievement and accomplishment is foolish, imo.

And to do the opposite is equally foolish. However, what matters most is to put all these "major achievments" in a greater perspective, and to realise what had happened before, when it happened, how and why. And then you can get on to think about what effects this "major achievement" really had on the world. Was it that major, or was it just part of something bigger?

Again, use the Annales School, to get a basic overview on things.

Now really, who are you trying to convince here? If Chinggis was western, he would be practically on par with a war deity in terms of how much coverage he would get in comparison to other, far less accomplished generals. Just look at Alexander. Practically everybody LOVES Alexander, even though few of his military tactics and formations were his own, instead borrowed from his father. Alexander was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, while Chinggis lived in poverty with his mother for years following his father's death, eventually proving his worth to become leader of his father's clan. Chinggis took on many different opponents, while Alexander took on a decayed Persian Empire and rebels in Afghanistan. At the least, Chinggis was on par with Alexander. And yet, if you ask the average western(especially American) high schooler about Chinggis' actual achievements, you'd probably get a blank stare and "I don't know" from most individuals, whereas most of those same people could at least tell you about some of the basics regarding Alexander beating Persia. But what really bites me is that every time an American child is told about Marco Polo, its always about how he visited the "courts of China", even though he actually visited the court of Kublai Khaan(alegedly, but whatever, that's a discussion for later), who was, of course, the Great Khaan of the Mongol Empire. People just don't like to give the Mongol Empire, and especially Chinggis, their proper dues.

On this one, I think you might be entirely correct. I think the reason I thought of it the way I did was that I really don't care much for great generals, and thus rarely discuss and compare them. I've never udnerstood what people find so interesting in Alexander really. Perhaps I know too little about him, but IMO, he was alive some 300+ years before history got really interesting.

The whole concept of a "mongol horde" is rather ficticious, in the western sense of the word.

I'm not aware of the origins of the term "Mongol horde", but if actually dates from the medieval period, it certainly fits. Two tumen, which from what I can tell wasn't too big a force to the Mongols, was far more than any western king could muster in the mid 13th century (well, technically most kingdoms could, but never needed such vast armies).