Why is Genghis Khan characterized as a ruthless conqueror while Alexander and Caesar are praised as heroes?

[removeduser_7456288]

.

[marceror]

I think this is all a matter of perspective, and depending on who you talk to those portrayals can easily reverse. Folks from Western Europe saw Ghengis Khan and Attila as ruthless conquerors simply because they were coming against their people and lands. Alexander and Caesar went to "lesser peoples" and "gave them culture". It's just perspective.

[removeduser_7456288]

.

[Darios]

But it does not vary, I do not know one place in which Genghis Khan is widely praised as a hero besides Mongolia or a "Turkic" country, yet Alexander and Caesar are praised globally.

Try Russia. It's become very popular to refer to Russia and Russians as "Mongol conquerors" these days in the West as if that is a type of insult. Russians don't mind it at all. The Mongol occupation of that country is seen similarly to how the English perceive the Normans and the Battle of Hastings - a significant moment in the history of Russian nation building.

Is history Euro-centric?

Yes...even Total War is. Sadly...

[Copperknickers II]

I would not regard the Persians as lesser than the Macedonians. But it does not vary, I do not know one place in which Genghis Khan is widely praised as a hero besides Mongolia or a "Turkic" country, yet Alexander and Caesar are praised globally. Is history Euro-centric?

The Mongols did nothing to the English, yet UK schools teach the Mongols like they're ruthless murderers. Considering Britain's history, is this not a little ironic?

This may be off topic, but are schools allowed to lie?

UK schools don't teach the mongols, in fact most Brits barely know who the mongols were. We don't learn anything about history before 1500, excepting the Romans (and the Scottish wars of independence, North of the wall). We don't really learn about Alexander the Great either. Anyhow, the Mongols were ruthless murderers, and Alexander the Great sacked the odd city, but he was also defending Macedonia against the Persian threat. It was self-defense. Besides without him we might not have Western civilisation today. The Persians were scientifically advanced, but they were tyrannical and oligarchical, and if they had reduced Greece to a backwater of the Middle Eastern civilisation then history might have taken a very different and very much less democratic route.

[athanaric]

UK schools don't teach the mongols, in fact most Brits barely know who the mongols were. We don't learn anything about history before 1500, excepting the Romans [...]

That goes not just for the Brits, but for most people in my experience. There is no widespread hatred of the Mongols in Western countries, we've got other problems and most people don't know anything about history, anyway.

We don't really learn about Alexander the Great either. Anyhow, the Mongols were ruthless murderers, and Alexander the Great sacked the odd city, but he was also defending Macedonia against the Persian threat. It was self-defense. Besides without him we might not have Western civilisation today. The Persians were scientifically advanced, but they were tyrannical and oligarchical, and if they had reduced Greece to a backwater of the Middle Eastern civilisation then history might have taken a very different and very much less democratic route.

That's stretching it a bit. He wasn't defending Macedonia against the Persians, he was bequeathed an invasion force and made good use of it. And the following sentences are speculative. But yeah, even Alexander's (and Cyrus's etc.) atrocities pale in comparison to Genghis's.

When did we mention slavery? but if you want....

The Arab slave trade started long before the Atlantic Slave trade, but has a fairly similar numbers in terms of slaves. 20 million slaves didn't even survive the Atlantic trade.

You have to take into account population densities and available technological means.
Speaking of not surviving, male African slaves in the Arab slave trade were castrated, which many of them didn't survive either.

1 in 5 of the Roman Empire's population were slaves

A significant number of ancient Greece's population consisted of slaves, some sources say up to 33%

And while you're at it, try to research some numbers on slavery in Asia, Africa, and the Americas before large-scale European involvement. I'd be very surprised if somehow they had fewer slaves in those places than the Europeans had.

[Abdülmecid I]

but he was also defending Macedonia against the Persian threat. It was self-defense. Besides without him we might not have Western civilisation today. The Persians were scientifically advanced, but they were tyrannical and oligarchical, and if they had reduced Greece to a backwater of the Middle Eastern civilisation then history might have taken a very different and very much less democratic route.

Alexander's campaign was purely aggressive and expansionist, since the Persian Empire hadn't launched any offensive operations in the Balkans for almost 150 years. Even Alexander himself didn't claim such a thing in his official propaganda, so I'm not sure where you got that from. Secondly, the Persians were neither tyrannical nor oligarchical (in fact, by definition, it's impossible to be both). Yes, they were ruled by an absolute monarch, but that doesn't mean they were particularly despotic. After all, Macedon was also an absolute monarchy and all the successor states (Lagids, Attalids, Seleucids and etc.) were governed the same way.

[marceror]

I don't consider the Persians to be "lesser" either, and that's what the quotes are meant to indicate. I'm quoting what other might say, not sharing my personal opinion. Actually, I think the Mongols were even allies with the Crusader States, so you have a point there. Even still, the Mongols were unknown and frightening hordes from the far east, and that makes a good camp fire story to scare your children with. Europeans doing the same basic thing as the Mongols? That was just doing "God's work". Nothing scary or horrible about that to your average European Christian.

[removeduser_7456288]

.

[marceror]

Well Caesar and Alexander lived before Christianity, so maybe they get a pass for that. More likely, they simply get a pass for conquering "other peoples" and building what are perceived by history to be great empires.

I don't know. It's a rather deep topic for my flu ridden body. I'm sure others can chime in.

[removeduser_7456288]

.

[removeduser_7456288]

.

[emcdunna]

Racism. He was asian. People were (and are) very hateful and afraid of new and different people, cultures, ideas, etc.

It also didn't help that he was burning down their lands and pillaging stuff.

[removeduser_7456288]

.

[Markas]

^ That was the answer I was looking for. Unfortunately, people are generally very ill conceived about other parts of the world and I believe history shows it the best. In that case, schools, at least in the UK, are promoting xenophobia.

How so? The UK has a flexible curriculum when it comes to history that is chosen by the teacher, not some uniform government-approved monolith like France. How is it 'promoting xenophobia?' would finding out about the horrendous acts of Genghis Khan and his dynasty make me more, or less, racist?

In this age we act as if the new generations are the all holy bringers of justice to end racism and the like. It is false. People are only doing that because of group conformity.

Do we? That's news to me. I guess we can thank group conformity, then, for being the 'holy bringers of justice to end racism and the like'.

We see that many people accept Caesar and Alexander as great conquerors, yet shun Genghis. People refuse to do their research, they do not really care. People just go with the flow.

A conqueror simply means you conquered something. The same as great doesn't mean good or positive.

People act like they are so tolerant and liberal yet their subconsciousness proves them wrong.

Who, specifically?

We have less free will than we think we do!

Especially when you make very broad statements filled with weasel words it seems.

[athanaric]

^ That was the answer I was looking for. Unfortunately, people are generally very ill conceived about other parts of the world and I believe history shows it the best. In that case, schools, at least in the UK, are promoting xenophobia.

It's also a pretty stupid answer. Besides the fact that "Asian" isn't a race, just a description of one's continent of origin...

The Avars and Turks and Mongols spread technology from China to the West like the Stirrup (a Mongolian Invention, from the Xianbei) and the Traction Trebuchet. They spread cultural influence into the Roman Empire which the Romans spread into Medieval Europe: particularly clothing fashion. Court Jesters, Great Hunts, and Falconry aren't from Medieval Europe. They were adopted from the Huns and Romans, who spread it from Central Asia and Iran.

There are a myriad of examples I can't even think of too. My point is that saying that Central Asia was culturally inferior is exactly the thought process that skews the perception of the Mongols and Huns and Turks as barbarians.

All the examples you've listed are military and/or courtly in nature, though. Are there any examples of advances in civic engineering, scholarly work, science, art etc.? I'm not aware of many, if any at all. Especially if we take into account that most of these innovations were borrowed from China or Persia, anyway.
I'd agree with you that we shouldn't look at the steppe peoples (or any other "barbarians") as savages with no culture or sophistication whatsoever, but I think it's also pretty clear that there was a gap between them and the settled civilizations when it comes to certain issues of cultural progress.

[Charerg]

It's also a pretty stupid answer. Besides the fact that "Asian" isn't a race, just a description of one's continent of origin...



All the examples you've listed are military and/or courtly in nature, though. Are there any examples of advances in civic engineering, scholarly work, science, art etc.? I'm not aware of many, if any at all. Especially if we take into account that most of these innovations were borrowed from China or Persia, anyway.
I'd agree with you that we shouldn't look at the steppe peoples (or any other "barbarians") as savages with no culture or sophistication whatsoever, but I think it's also pretty clear that there was a gap between them and the settled civilizations when it comes to certain issues of cultural progress.

Re: Steppe inventions
Well, they did tame the horse, you know... you could call that a pretty useful "invention".

And the chariot was probably invented on the steppes as well. Admittedly a somewhat military invention, but could be put to civilian use as well. And they did, as mentioned, play a big role in porting Chinese inventions over to Europe and Western Asia. Also, steppe influenced art could be very beautiful, I wouldn't say that the steppe cultures lacked "artistic sophistication". Although you're right that the sort of inventions that would be useful for a settled populace, such as farming or architecture related inventions, weren't invented on the steppes.

[emcdunna]

But also, people don't praise Alexander and Caeser as much as they do Kim Kardashian and Justin Beiber (at least in america).

I'd be happier with a bunch or racists history fanatics than a bunch of myopic media attention seekers who worship pop stars like gods.

I believe that xenophobia is inherent in all human cultures and in natural human behavior.

[removeduser_7456288]

.

[Charerg]

Well, there's some truth in saying that Genghis' campaigns were more destructive (and the Mongols were more ruthless) towards the civilian populations in the areas they conquered. Not to say that Alexander and Caesar were necessarily beyond massacres or use of terror to achieve their aims, but generally speaking, as far as history can tell, they didn't use those means as heavily as the Mongols did. Simply put, there's no denying that Genghis Khan was ruthless. This is also true of Alexander or Caesar, but to a lesser extent. Also, especially in Caesar's case it's hard to compare, since his campaigns were a bit more local in nature until the Roman civil war. But I don't know if Caesar is seen as much of a hero nowadays, I've seen plenty of documentaries where he's depicted as a greedy, ruthless conqueror (in fact, probably 99% of people would associate the word "ruthless" with Caesar).