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

[+Marius+]

It is commonly held that Italian merchants brought the plague from the Middle East. Sure, the Mongols secured the safe road allowing the disease to travel, but they were not doing it on purpose.

The siege of Caffa is widely accepted as being the start of the Black Plague in Europe.

After a protracted siege, during which the Mongol army under Jani Beg was suffering from the disease, the army catapulted the infected corpses over the city walls of Kaffa to infect the inhabitants.
The Genoese traders fled, taking the plague by ship into Sicily and the south of Europe, whence it spread north.

Every comment you made about the Mongols is revisionist, every single sentence you made about them so far is exclusively positive.

You even managed to slip in securing roads and safe travel into them spreading the Plague.

At the same time, nearly every sentence you write about anything related to Europe is combined with something negative.

Then you accuse others of bias and prejudice...

[removeduser_7456288]

After a protracted siege, during which the Mongol army under Jani Beg was suffering from the disease, the army catapulted the infected corpses over the city walls of Kaffa to infect the inhabitants.
The Genoese traders fled, taking the plague by ship into Sicily and the south of Europe, whence it spread north.

This is not proven, and may be a myth.

"This theory is consistent with the technology of the times and with contemporary notions of disease causation; however, the entry of plague into Europe from the Crimea likely occurred independent of this event." (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/9/01-0536_article)

"Several questions need to be addressed if this theory of how plague moved from the Black Sea to Italy is deemed credible. The first aspect of this question removes the importance of the rest of the argument. Were the Genoese healthy at the time of the plague outbreak around Kaffa? Even though the Genoese were holed up in their walled city, the rats most likely had free issue to come and go over and under the walls at night. Catapults or not, if the plague was in the camps outside the walls, it was inside the walls as well. So the thoughts of the besieging army, that those inside the walls were well, were wrong. When the siege began anew the second time, which probably coincided with the onset of the area plague, Genoese residents fled back to Italy—by ship. All ships with food cargo had pests, and the likelihood that these cargo rats brought the plague to the ports of Italy seems high. Trade ships traveled the area all the time. If plague was in the shipping routes, it was destined for distribution by the commerce of trade, regardless of the events at Kaffa."

"Next we come to the issue of who was going to hurl the bodies. In medieval times artillerymen were contractors. They were not slaves or conscripts, but valued employees. It was believed in that time that the disease was transmitted through the air around the dead and dying. No healthy soldier was going to voluntarily retrieve, haul, load, and fire a rotting corpse of his comrade emitting all of the putrid smells and fluids of the plague. This leads to the conclusion that this might have been a myth generated as part of the propaganda of warfare or the embellished memories of horrible days gone by amplified by time."

"Did bodies fly through the air with the greatest of ease? Did these bodies start the Black Death of Europe? It seems unlikely that this is how things happened. Rats would have moved freely through the walled city of Kaffa, and the fleeing people probably took those rats with them in their ships’ cargo. This most likely is how the plague came to the Genoese and to Italy and ultimately the rest of Europe.
"

http://entomology.montana.edu/histor.../Broughton.htm


They would have been infected by rats regardless of the Mongols. You are blaming everything on them. Pure bias!

[Dromikaites]

Give me the source. The Mongol's "contempories" were also known to exaggerate and were prone to bias as they were attacked by the Mongols. The fact that you take their sources as "evidence" proves that you are being biased.

Ignoring the written sources would be being un-biased?!

If the contemporary sources are ignored what are we left with? Imagination?

Again, why is the Middle East in ruins today? Because of Mongols?

The question pertaining to the OP you graciously used to open this thread with has to do more with why was the Middle East in ruins after the Mongols conquered it instead of being in ruins after the Persians and the Arabs conquered it...

Or did I misunderstand the thread is about why Genghis has a bad name, unlike say Caesar or Alexander III Macedon or Charlemagne?

Great! You just proved my point. You are full of bias, and you expect people to believe you?

Read again what he is saying and try harder to understand what those words mean.

[removeduser_7456288]

Ignoring the written sources would be being un-biased?!

If the contemporary sources are ignored what are we left with? Imagination?

Can you not see it? Read my evidence.

[+Marius+]

The fact that you believe I was talking about you proves my point --- even you have a subconscious thought of yourself being biased.

No, you actually stated that I believe other cultures to be beneath European and other things.

You said, the Europeans had no notion to spread disease, they clearly did.

Provide a single source during the initial colonization that states so.

Venice crusaded against Byzantines in 4th Crusade for economic reasons. What if pagans teleported into the future, went to Venice, and killed everyone? You wouldn't be saying this, reversing pagans and the non pagans.

That still does not make any sense.

Again, why is the Middle East in ruins today? Because of Mongols?

Because of Middle Easterners?

Great! You just proved my point. You are full of bias, and you expect people to believe you?

Again, you completely misinterpreted that statement...and somehow, I do not understand how, managed to completely miss the fact that by your own interpretation, you are also biased.

You are running out of strawmans, this thread died some time ago, now it is just you shouting and trying to recuperate the utter failure it was.

[removeduser_7456288]

Provide a single source during the initial colonization that states so.

Like I said, why does it matter if it is the initial colonization? You admitted yourself that the Europeans did it after, it does not make them any better. After seeing what disease could do, they tried to cause it again. Yeah, much better.

You are running out of strawmans, this thread died some time ago, now it is just you shouting and trying to recuperate the utter failure it was.

No, this is just you insulting me because you're offended that I'm defending a people who attacked your country.

But since you believe this...

You are running out of strawmans, you lost this argument some time ago, now it is just you shouting and trying to recuperate the utter failure it was

Why are you continuing to argue? I already reached my conclusion, that you are biased, and people like you, because of past recent experiences with the Mongols.

No, because of Middle Easterners.

The Middle East is worse off than it was before Western intervention.

That still does not make any sense.

It is a simple analogy, not too hard to comprehend

No, you actually stated that I believe other cultures to be beneath European and other things.

Quote me

[Dromikaites]

Can you not see it? Read my evidence.

You mean the books of a guy who is highly decorated by the Mongolian government for his interpretation of the primary sources in a way that pleases the Mongolian government and your good self?

How about given a choice I choose the way most of the academics interpret them?

So the Mesopotamian episode aside, how about the majority of the Mongols continuing to live in tents in spite of conquering all those big cities?

Any idea why the Franks chose not to stick to mud huts after conquering the Roman Gaul?

[removeduser_7456288]

You mean the books of a guy who is highly decorated by the Mongolian government for his interpretation of the primary sources in a way that pleases the Mongolian government and your good self?

Do those links look like they were from that book? They were from a university and a .gov site...

http://entomology.montana.edu/histor.../Broughton.htm
(http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/9/01-0536_article)

So the Mesopotamian episode aside, how about the majority of the Mongols continuing to live in tents in spite of conquering all those big cities?

Any idea why the Franks chose not to stick to mud huts after conquering the Roman Gaul?

So the Mongols' nomadic culture makes them bad? Wow.



yeah, the Romans, great governors, relying on conquest to stabilize the Roman Empire on loot...and no more conquering led to a weakened economy


Macedonia is such a great country today, protests and a dead economy are great!

[+Marius+]

Like I said, why does it matter if it is the initial colonization? You admitted yourself that the Europeans did it after, it does not make them any better.

Again, that was not the argument.

Try reading the stuff you reply to sometimes.

No, this is just you insulting me because you're offended that I'm defending a people who attacked your country.

No, this is me laughing at you because you are judging me for disliking a man who directly or indirectly caused the murder of a quarter of the human population.

This is us Europeans facepalming while looking at your pathetic attempts at reviving one of the biggest mass murderers in history and actually judging us, and calling us prejudiced, once we refuse to dance to the tunes.

The Middle East is worse off than it was before Western intervention.

Perhaps because of Middle Easterners?

It is a simple analogy, not too hard to comprehend

Its an idiotic analogy, because those pagans have nothing to do with Constantinople, and neither does Venice have anything to do with northern pagans.

It makes no sense.

Quote me

You believe Europeans as a people are less "barbaric" than others.

Question, what is it that you want actually?

I mean, after all this thread slagging, what is actually wrong that you deem in need of fixing?

[removeduser_7456288]

This is us Europeans facepalming while looking at your pathetic attempts at reviving one of the biggest mass murderers in history and actually judging us, and calling us prejudiced, once we refuse to not like him.

I never said you had to like him. I was simply stating that Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, and even Christopher Columbus should not be held higher than him.
Why is Genghis Khan characterized as a ruthless conqueror while Alexander and Caesar are praised as heroes?

Again, that was not the argument.

Try reading the stuff you reply to sometimes.

Then I turned it into another argument, and you are cleverly trying to circumnavigate it.

Its an idiotic analogy, because pagans have nothing to do with Constantinople, and neither does Venice have anything to do with northern pagans either.

It makes no sense.

You cannot understand it, so it is idiotic? What is vice versa is true?

Question, what is it that you want actually?

I mean, after all this thread slagging, what is actually wrong that you deem in need of fixing?

You cannot judge Genghis Khan until you judge many other conquerors. Caesar was just as capable as Genghis Khan, and would have been if situations were switched.

Likewise, you cannot worship one and shun the other, as that is just bias. Do you like Hitler better than Mao because he killed less people?



Genghis Khan, Alexander, and Caesar all deserve the same respect for their military genius instead of nationalists calling one of them a mass murderer and the others gentle rulers. I respect them all as great generals. You, on the other hand, clearly do not.

[+Marius+]

Then I turned it into another argument, and you are cleverly trying to circumnavigate it.

Nope.

I never said you had to like him. I was simply stating that Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, and even Christopher Columbus should not be held higher than him.

Why?

They murdered far less men while achieving "great" things.
(not Columbus though, he deserves the infamy)

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

Because they were heroes to the West, this has already been explained to you.

Caesar jumpstarted the creation of the Roman Empire and Alexander is the single greatest example of the West pwning the East in the history of humanity.

West likes the West, just as the East likes the East.

Deal with it.

Likewise, you cannot worship one and shun the other, as that is just bias.

Yes I can, in the same way I like Croat generals of the Homeland War but dislike the Serb generals.

It is not "just bias" it is a completely rational example of human tribalism, rooting for your own, the same thing that makes people cheer for their local football club.

Also, again, Alexander and Caesar put together did not murder even 1/10th of what Genghis did.

Also, again, why are Saladin, Arslan, Darius, Cyrus the Great and many others from Asia not demonized?

You just managed to pick the single most ruthless dude and cheer for him, without realizing that it is not just a matter of bias, but a matter of Genghis simply being a far more horrible demon than the men you are comparing him to.

Do you like Hitler better than Mao because he killed less people?

No, what you are doing here is pretty much asking for Churchill to be hated as much as Hitler because of Dresden and other allied crimes.

[Dromikaites]

So the Mongols' nomadic culture makes them bad? Wow.

The unwillingness to abandon their nomadic cultura makes them stupid.

What makes them bad is the trail of destruction they left behind. Unnecessary destruction, judging by how others went about conquering.

yeah, the Romans, great governors, relying on conquest to stabilize the Roman Empire on loot...and no more conquering led to a weakened economy

Given they had built their empire in ways far smarter than the Mongols, that their empire lasted for some 1600 years and the modern world is pretty much shaped by their legacy I'd say they knew a thing or two more than the object of your adoration.

Macedonia is such a great country today, protests and a dead economy are great!

Compared to Mongolia nowadays?

[Erebus Pasha]

Y
Again, why is the Middle East in ruins today? Because of Mongols?

It's arguable that Baghdad never recovered from it's destruction in 1258.

[+Marius+]

Ah yes, the sack of Baghdad, nothing especially destructive, already by 1963 the population roughly caught on the pre-Mongol sack state.

The current government announced that the damage done by the Mongols(and to a smaller extent by Saddam) to the irrigation systems will be reverted by 2021.

Those fuzzy Mongols with their "lets destroy an entire region of the world and literally reduce it to a desert" carousel of "civilized" behavior.

[removeduser_7456288]

The current government announced that the damage done by the Mongols(and to a smaller extent by Saddam) to the irrigation systems will be reverted by 2021.

Ah, yes, as they clearly have time to focus on those things given the situation in Iraq

It is not "just bias" it is a completely rational example of human tribalism, rooting for your own, the same thing that makes people cheer for their local football club.

That is bias...I am part Chinese yet do I care about the Mongols attacking us? Nope. Neither do my parents, and their parents. My asian friends literally give two about the Mongols...

No, what you are doing here is pretty much asking for Churchill to be hated as much as Hitler because of Dresden and other allied crimes.

He should be hated, although not to the extent of Hitler because he was not starving the Indians due to a sense of racial superiority

Also, again, Alexander and Caesar put together did not murder even 1/10th of what Genghis did.

They also conquered far less

Also, again, why are Saladin, Arslan, Darius, Cyrus the Great and many others from Asia not demonized?

I admit, they were less brutal than Genghis Khan, but Julius Caesar was just as capable of Genghis. When I was a kid, I always saw Julius Caesar as a brilliant general, the Mongols barbarians, until I educated myself. Caesar could be just as brutal. Even if the mongols were brutal, they deserve recognition of their superb skill on the field. Of course, people who study history will know this, but the common people should know that the Mongols were even greater than the Romans on the field. They deserve that recognition.

West likes the West, just as the East likes the East.

Deal with it.

Bias

Ah yes, the sack of Baghdad, nothing especially destructive, already by 1963 the population roughly caught on the pre-Mongol sack state.

Boohoo, they knew how brutal the Mongols were. The Caliph's vizier invited Hulagu to sack it, mind you...He should have surrendered

[Iskar]

Gentlemen,

I think we should take a break at this point. Simply restating one's point while again and again accusing the other side of comprehension issues or insurmountable bias is a sorry excuse for a discussion. As it is quite a waste of time to tidy up nearly every single one of the more recent posts we will all be taking a nice and refreshing twelve hour break from this. After that you will be free to continue this debate in a civil and academic manner, concentrating on the actual historical matters and not the mindset of your "opponents". If this thread then derails again into near-disruptive style and personal comments it will be closed for good.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Dromikaites]

Boohoo, they knew how brutal the Mongols were. The Caliph's vizier invited Hulagu to sack it, mind you...He should have surrendered

That is so rich!

By the same standard, by the time the Japanese had reached Nanking the Chinese should have known how brutal they were.

[Condottiere 40K]

Unexpected resistance and previous losses didn't help.

[Colossus]

The Mongol's "contempories" were also known to exaggerate and were prone to bias as they were attacked by the Mongols. The fact that you take their sources as "evidence" proves that you are being biased.

Specific figures are surely exaggerated (in both directions depending on the situation), but this is true of most medieval sources. What matters is the relative order of magnitude. All sources agree that the initial Mongol conquests were highly destructive. For example, Juvaini, while Persian, was a Mongol governor - his account of the initial invasion (under Genghis and Tolui) makes the levels of destruction incredibly clear, despite often being very complementary towards the Mongols. This actually agrees for the most part with the entirely hostile sources.

I would highly suggest finding David Morgan's Medieval Persia on google books and reading the three pages under the heading 'The Mongol Impact on Persia' (p. 79 in the recent edition). As well as the initial invasion and destruction it caused, this also discusses the impact on agriculture, which while not necessarily intentional, was severe. One reason why China was not damaged to such an extent was the advice and strong influence of certain administrative figures within the Mongol court.

All widespread conquests are going to involve killing people, that is just reality. However, it is impossible to deny that the Mongol conquests were especially destructive, both in terms of people killed and cities and land that was destroyed. It is not strictly necessary to enter a debate about the intention of particular conquerors (you can read about Romanization or Hellenization for ages) or whether they were 'civilising' or 'barbarians'. What you can do is look at both the initial conquest and then the impact on the area from a more detached point of view and whether it prospered or not.

[removeduser_7456288]

Did the Japanese give them a chance to surrender? Nanjing was an odd occurrence, the Japanese soldiers did not obey orders. I also doubt the Mongols stabbed babies and tortured people to the extent that the Japanese did, in which even Hitler asked his Germans to stop sending him letters about the details.