Genghis Khan

[marxistcritic]

I have seen some incredible misconceptions about Ghenghis Khan. He was realy[for his era, at least] a great, or at least good, man. He abolished torture, smashed feudal systems of aristrocratic privilage, united the Asian continent, abolished slavery, abolished inheritance, allowed universal religious freedom, and distributed goods equally among his people.

I do, however, disagree with his tactics of conquest[killing tons of civilians].

Anyone want to argue this with me, do it here.

[Dimentio]

I have seen some incredible misconceptions about Ghenghis Khan. He was realy[for his era, at least] a great, or at least good, man. He abolished torture, smashed feudal systems of aristrocratic privilage, united the Asian continent, abolished slavery, abolished inheritance, allowed universal religious freedom, and distributed goods equally among his people.

I do, however, disagree with his tactics of conquest[killing tons of civilians].

Anyone want to argue this with me, do it here.

Yes, and he killed a lot of nobles. That was what made him (and the Mongols) so "savage". Usually, to be a nobleman in war was quite much like being a deer hunter today. It was considered imprude to kill noblemen.

The Mongols simply slaughtered all noblemen.

But they did it not for any class warfare reasons, but rather so that the occupied countries would not have any indigenous elite which was able to lead them in resistance. The Mongols were also ruthless to cities refusing to surrender, but mild to those who surrendered.

Amongst the peoples of Europe, I know that the Mongol Empire was held in high regard. The peasants had this myth about a king in the east "Prester John" who ruled over a vast empire with wisdom, power and love and fought the muslims. Everyone in his kingdom were protected by the king, and there was no feudal lords. That was actually inspired by the Mongol Empire.

The Mongols inspired the renaissance humanists as well. They introduced the concept of secularism, of independent courts, uniform trading laws, rudimentary social rights, open debates between different religions and philosophies and totally changed the nature of warfare.

Even fashion was influenced by the Mongols. Panties and jackets were introduced by them in Europe.

But it is important to state that the Mongols weren't into it to be humanitarian. Rather, their main characteristic was their relentless pragmaticism. They had no values, no ideology, except conquering the whole world. The Mongol Empire at its peak composed about two thirds of then humanity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif

[marxistcritic]

I knew about the philosophy and fashion and stuff, but the Prestor John story was actually about the king of eithiopia.

[Dimentio]

I knew about the philosophy and fashion and stuff, but the Prestor John story was actually about the king of eithiopia.

Sometimes it was placed "east of Jerusalem", sometimes in "Etiopia" and sometimes in "The New World". It was some sort of ideal image of how a society should look like in comparision with the reality.

[marxistcritic]

It was, however, proven that there really was a king of Eithiopia called Prestor John.

[MarxSchmarx]

There is a lot of misconceptions about Genghis Khan, to be sure.


I have seen some incredible misconceptions about Ghenghis Khan. He was realy[for his era, at least] a great, or at least good, man. He abolished torture, smashed feudal systems of aristrocratic privilage, united the Asian continent, abolished slavery, abolished inheritance, allowed universal religious freedom, and distributed goods equally among his people.


Our standards of good and bad cannot be reasonably applied to that time. Arguably there were some inspirational utopian and peasant movements around the world, but in terms of contemporary utility, I'm skeptical they have much to offer besides historical appreciation.

Nor does the claim "for his era" really say all that much, because human life was just so incredibly cheap during that time.

A lot of your claims are debatable, but as far as abolishing slavery and inheritance, both of these are clearly not true.
For instance, in the yassa code of the empire, it states:


To prevent the flight of alien slaves, it is forbidden to give them asylum, food or clothing, under pain of death. Any man who meets an escaped slave and does not bring him back to his master will be punished in the same manner.


and


Children born of slaves are legitimate as the children of wives. The offspring of the first woman shall be honored above other children and shall inherit everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yassa

Mongolians were exempt from slavery but that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of Genghis Khan's values...
And a lot of it was from an era so long ago that it's messages for contemporary movements is quite vague. However, as an arm-chair historian the mongol empire is a fascinating phenomenon.



Yes, and he killed a lot of nobles. That was what made him (and the Mongols) so "savage". Usually, to be a nobleman in war was quite much like being a deer hunter today. It was considered imprude to kill noblemen.
The Mongols simply slaughtered all noblemen.

More concrete, winners write the history books. With the exception of Rashid al-Din and the Secrete History of the Yuan Dynasty, most of the historiography comes from people who overthrew (Ming, Romanovs) or successfully resisted (Japan) the Mongols.



But they did it not for any class warfare reasons, but rather so that the occupied countries would not have any indigenous elite which was able to lead them in resistance.

This is not quite true. First, arguably there was a materialist (nomadic class?) reason for the Mongol conquests; it is also no accident that once they came into new territories, they did much to encourage the nascent Asian bourgeoisie. Second, the indigenous elite played an integral role in administering the Mongol empire. This is part of the reasons the Mongols were so successful - indeed, they followed the Chinese custom of nominal suzerainty in exchange for hefty tribute.



The Mongols were also ruthless to cities refusing to surrender, but mild to those who surrendered.


And indeed this ruthlessness was a part of larger propaganda campaign to discourage other cities from resisting.



Amongst the peoples of Europe, I know that the Mongol Empire was held in high regard. The peasants had this myth about a king in the east "Prester John" who ruled over a vast empire with wisdom, power and love and fought the muslims. Everyone in his kingdom were protected by the king, and there was no feudal lords. That was actually inspired by the Mongol Empire.


True, but for somewhat different reasons. Indeed, the "Cult" of prestor John was encouraged by the elite who saw him as the knight in shining armor who would fight the Muslims. Indeed, the Mongols had a somewhat vague alliance with "Christiandom" that lasted, amazingly, until the battle of Leponto!

[Dr. Zoidberg]

MarxSchmarx is right. When Khan's army went to war, they fought with their slaves forming a human shield in front of them, with the warriors behind them, and their families behind them (they were nomads). Not sure if that is perfectly true, but I read it in a National Geographic history book (1000 events that shaped the world). Regardless, I still have respect for him.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Genghis Khan was terribly cruel in battle, and once said "the conquered have to be destroyed in order to ensure the happiness of the conquerors".

But on the other hand the Mongol Empire was a civilised society with freedom of religion (christians, jews, muslims, manicheists, pagans,...) and a high standard of civilization, we can't deny that.

[Jack]

Genghis Khan was terribly cruel in battle, and once said "the conquered have to be destroyed in order to ensure the happiness of the conquerors".

But on the other hand the Mongol Empire was a civilised society with freedom of religion (christians, jews, muslims, manicheists, pagans,...) and a high standard of civilization, we can't deny that.

No, not really, which is one reason why the Mongol Empire fell apart. Because they kept their savage nomadic ways they didn't build cities like the Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks did. In fact they many times slaughtered everyone who was higher than a carriage wheel, and there was much rape. Just because there was a freedom of religion doesn't mean it was a libertarian or peaceful society.

[redSHARP]

i read a story about the mogols and their interesting warfare "codes".

once there was an enemy army that stood in front of the mogols, when the battle began, the enemy fled the field and only one man was left to challenge the mongols. When Genghis khan heard this he immediately spared the mans life for his bravery and promoted him to be an officer in the mongol army.

the mongols kicked ass in Age Of Empires 2!!!

[Jack]

i read a story about the mogols and their interesting warfare "codes".

once there was an enemy army that stood in front of the mogols, when the battle began, the enemy fled the field and only one man was left to challenge the mongols. When Genghis khan heard this he immediately spared the mans life for his bravery and promoted him to be an officer in the mongol army.

the mongols kicked ass in Age Of Empires 2!!!

I had lost this game for like 4 years, then a couple of months ago I actually went out and bought it because I missed it so much....

[FreeFocus]

Fuck Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile, sadistic individuals to grace the Earth. He was a mass murderer. I don't see a need to praise a mass murderer.

[Dimentio]

No, not really, which is one reason why the Mongol Empire fell apart. Because they kept their savage nomadic ways they didn't build cities like the Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks did. In fact they many times slaughtered everyone who was higher than a carriage wheel, and there was much rape. Just because there was a freedom of religion doesn't mean it was a libertarian or peaceful society.

The Mongol Empire did build or improve a lot of cities. Karakorum and Khanbalik are just two examples. Samarkand turned into a metropol during their time.

[Revy]

I think China was more advanced as a society.

Even in the Tang dynasty you might as well have called them modern compared to their neighbors. The capital Chang'an had a million people and was very much a "cosmopolitan" city and had early "skyscrapers" like the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda (ten stories!) which means in the 700s it would have been about as tall as the first modern skyscraper, Home Insurance Building (built in the late 1800s).

Not to mention all the technological advances made by China.

[pastradamus]

Did anyone see the new movie about him? is it worth watching or just another trashy movie?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Did anyone see the new movie about him? is it worth watching or just another trashy movie?


I found it entertaining although its nothing deep and has as much historical merit as a shat in urinal.

[marxistcritic]

MarxSchmarx is right. When Khan's army went to war, they fought with their slaves forming a human shield in front of them, with the warriors behind them, and their families behind them (they were nomads). Not sure if that is perfectly true, but I read it in a National Geographic history book (1000 events that shaped the world). Regardless, I still have respect for him.
They were not slaves. They were prisoners of wars that would soon become free men again.

[marxistcritic]

Genghis Khan was terribly cruel in battle, and once said "the conquered have to be destroyed in order to ensure the happiness of the conquerors".

But on the other hand the Mongol Empire was a civilised society with freedom of religion (christians, jews, muslims, manicheists, pagans,...) and a high standard of civilization, we can't deny that.
Only the cities that refused to surrender.

[marxistcritic]

I think China was more advanced as a society.

Even in the Tang dynasty you might as well have called them modern compared to their neighbors. The capital Chang'an had a million people and was very much a "cosmopolitan" city and had early "skyscrapers" like the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda (ten stories!) which means in the 700s it would have been about as tall as the first modern skyscraper, Home Insurance Building (built in the late 1800s).

Not to mention all the technological advances made by China.
But only the ruling classes were able to enjoy the benefits of such an advanced society.