His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
>Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies.
Merv has surrendered, but the war wasn't over. It wasn't just mindless killing, it was for a military objective.
>Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
You don't target enemy military assets with fire bombings.
>It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
The motivation for it wasn't to kill civilians, it was always for military reasons.
"To each [Mongol soldier] was allotted the execution of
three or four hundred Persians. So many had been killed by
nightfall that the mountains became hillocks, and the
plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty."
Some historians believe that over one million people died in
the aftermath of the city's capture, including hundreds of
thousands of refugees from elsewhere, making it one of the
most bloody captures of a city in world history.
Excavations revealed drastic rebuilding of the city's
fortifications in the aftermath, but the prosperity of the
city had passed.
If you look at the basic mechanics of well-documented atrocities at that scale--Rwandan Genocide, Holocaust, Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, Great Chinese Famine, etc--you'll see some combination of long time periods, very modern technology, and a sophisticated socio-political apparatus leveraged for population control. Without some mix of these things, you have no hope of killing enough people before they literally run for the hills and escape your reach.
It was "reported" by the mongols to scare other cities to surrender without a fight. It was part of what we call war propaganda.
And of course also by the enemies of the mongols to demonize the mongols and make the local population fight harder.
But most of it is pure myth. Common sense tells you that.
I disagree. If that was the case, then no man would be praiseworthy.
> His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
No he didn't and no it wasn't anything near the most important city in western asia. Go read about the supposed destruction of the cities and see how absurd it is.
Certainly the status of Merv declined as the mongols diverted trade routes to suit them but that's empire.
Also, west asia has lots of great and important cities. I wouldn't go around complaining Mery was the most important cities in west asia when cities like jerusalem, baghdad and a bunch more exist in west asia.