That said, there are still people pissed about the Mongol conquest. Genghis Khan is still hated in China, and central Asia and especially the middle east.
For instance, in popular culture, such as Jinyong's Legend of the Condor Heroes, Genghis Khan is a secondary character, depicted as a smart leader who was shaped by the treachery of his own sworn brother and by the oppression of the Jurchen Jin dynasty. The reader is lead to empathize with Genghis Khan, through the eyes of Guojing, the patriotic Sung protagonist, despite the resentment that exists between him and Genghis Khan, the Mongolian leader who has decided to turn on their Sung dynasty allies.
I know Jinyong's work is fiction with a historical background, but I believe his work is a good indication of Chinese sentiments towards historical events and figures.
As someone from the middle East (with a high chance of having Mongol blood), it does annoy me how much people are enamoured by Genghis khan. The guy was a brutal imperialist.
I was international student and met many at my university. It was mind boggling how almost everyone would celebrate their cultures' conquests & wars and at the same time call Western conquests evil and the worst thing.
It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
I'm not sure what a "thorough self evaluation" would actually mean. I don't think that's even remotely feasible, given the immense scope of the subject matter. What has happened is that certain elements within western civilization have focused their efforts on criticizing western civilization, some in good faith and some not, and the rest of western civilization has allowed them to do so. That is the part that is rare, just like suicide, and for the same reason.
It is rare everywhere. Even in the west.
We celebrate george washington and have statues, schools, etc named after racist slavers and genocidal murderers.
> It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
Really? You think most of us think western imperialism was horrible? We may give lip service to it, but we celebrate our heritage. From ancient greece to rome to the british empire to now our american empire, we celebrate our conquests and victories.
The standard trope amongst the british is that the british empire brought civilization and democracy to most of the world. Our justification for the american empire is that we bring "freedom" to the world.
Coming from a small European country what are the things I should be ashamed of?
Just the British and Americans? Or are Spanish/Portuguese empires also something I should be constantly aware of.
Care to respond rather than downvote?
Columbus Day is still very much a thing and Queen Elizabeth is still very much of a celebrated Queen of England and a source of pride. Many more examples abound.
now their memories are faded and people are free to lionize without a lot of outcry.
The mongols didn't exterminate the people they conquered and settle the land with mongols.
> Why is one OK and the other not?
For the same reason why nazi germany was exceptionally evil.
The mongols weren't good. They were empire builders. But they didn't set out to exterminate people.
The difference between western imperialism and mongol imperialism is that russians, chinese, koreans, turks, central asians, arabs, persians, siberians, etc still exist.
Now compare that to what happened to the native americas, inuits, aborigines, etc.
Well... they sort of did. It's just that their selection criteria amounted to "those who oppose us" rather than "those of ancestries we consider bad".
On the macro-scale, there's little difference.
Extermination wasn't their goal, but IIRC they had a policy of exterminating any who resisted them, as a lesson to others. That wasn't standard policy for all empire builders.
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-t...
It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
You can say the same with Japan.
Mongols never invaded it cause of bad weather.
What they did to Iran (formerly Persia) and the middle east can not be forgotten. Killing a mother while she was breastfeeding her infant baby? Even animals don't do that. I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
With the higher density came a higher density of fortifications. With a low density the Mongols could just bypass anything they couldn't take, but with enough of these forts an invading army opened itself to attack from every direction.
The newer European fortresses were also a lot harder for the Mongols to attack. IIRC the Hungarians had 5 in the region the Mongols attacked and none of them fell. Germany had thousands, and they were generally higher quality. Even if they could get inside the city it was attackers in leather against defenders in plate or chain. The Mongols had no real advantages in a siege situation since they couldn't bring their coordination or mobility to bear.
And you can't trap the mongols, their mobile army lived off the land and moved far too fast with a lethality that european armies couldn't deal with.
The death of Chenggis Khan was the only thing that saved Europe from a massacre and enslavement by the mongols.
In any case it's a geographic name coextensive with a modern polity now, and a modern speaker using it to identify a geographic location even for events that predate the modern polity is normal and clear.
By Conn Iggulden
See https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Mongols-have-a-reasonable-chan... especially the answer by Tim ONeil.
That's a pretty bad answer. Look at the conquest of Southern Song - the Mongols were operating far from the steppe, they were up against a large number of fortified positions, and in terrain that wasn't well suited for them (Southern China is not "open country", like Tim ONeill claims). It also didn't fall quickly (the way he says the centralized polities fell), it took decades of devastating war.
It's true that people often exaggerate how close Western Europe came to being conquered by the Mongols. But people arguing against that idea often throw around just as much bad history.
> It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
It was dumb luck that the first major european campaign ended. But it was also lots of diplomatic negotiations and the Pope's willingness to "humble" himself before the "Great Khans". Because of the christian tradition of "Render under Caesar" set by jesus himself in the new testament, Popes and christian leaders were willing to "bow before the khan". Whereas other leaders ( muslim, chinese, russians, etc ) refused for variety of reasons and were conquered. Also, the pope had the benefit of seeing mongols crush one empire after another by the time the mongols reached europe, so they weren't blinded by hubris like the Khwarazmian empire. For example, when the mongols sent a delegation to the shah of khwarazmian, he had them tortured and killed and sent a humiliated surviving diplomat back to genghis khan. The pope knew about what happened to the shah and the khwarazmian empire and he knew to act accordingly. When the mongols sent a delegate to Rome, he didn't have them tortured and killed. Instead the pope sent out his own delegation to develop political ties. Even trying to form alliances with the mongols against the muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum
The history of western civilization changed completely because the "humility" of the pope and the catholic church. It was the friendly relations with the mongol empire which gave italians lucrative trade relations within the mongol empire which led to the rise of the medicis, the italian renaissance and a rebirth of europe from the doldrums of the dark ages.
Arguably one of the most important events in human history is the many trade delegations the pope sent to mongolia to get favorable trade deals with the mongol empire. Without that, we don't have italian renaissance. And the collapse of the mongol empire and especially the golden horde which led to a completely severing of links between italy/europe to the rest of asia is what led to the age of european exploration. It was the collapse of the overland trade routes protected by the mongols that led to europe's search for a sea route. It isn't a coincidence that columbus set for sail a few years after Ivan the Great defeated the golden horde in 1480 and ended mongol rule over the rus.
I don't think it was luck. It was probably the lack of cars ;)
>propel or carry along by force in a specified direction
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...
As for the rest of that list, I don't recall any of them having been responsible for massacring and plundering almost an entire continent. And non of them (except Washington in the US) are held at high esteem at all.
His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study.
The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context.
As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.
The guy was responsible for the eradication of many civilizations, and a ridiculous amount of plundering, death, and destruction. How can you act "out of respect" to that?
