.
.
Last edited by removeduser_7456288; April 17, 2019 at 12:42 AM.
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.
.
Last edited by removeduser_7456288; April 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM.
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.
.
Last edited by removeduser_7456288; April 17, 2019 at 12:44 AM.
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.
.
Last edited by removeduser_7456288; April 17, 2019 at 12:48 AM.
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.
Yes...even Total War is. Sadly...
Under the Patronage of PikeStance
.
Last edited by removeduser_7456288; April 17, 2019 at 12:48 AM.
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.
.
Last edited by removeduser_7456288; April 17, 2019 at 01:16 AM.
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.
.
Last edited by removeduser_7456288; April 17, 2019 at 01:17 AM.
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).
Alexander the Great has the good press of being a Western Conqueror conquering the East, whereas Genghis Khan has the bad press of being an eastern conqueror conquering the West. There's also an element of time healing all wounds as it's been thousands of years since Alexander and we can only really see the good things his conquests spread by accident due to most of the records having been made by his followers, whereas with the Khan the records were mostly made by his enemies and hence his misdeeds are more pronounced.
Dan Carlin did a great episode on Hardcore History about this, in fact it was his first HH episode. I recommend you check it out.
Eurocentrism basically plus classical historians love the Greeks and Romans to the point that they are still the central focus of history. Egypt comes up next but overall after the renaissance Greaco-roman was all the rage and it has mostly stayed that way. I have never even seen a documentary about the Persian Empire except when it is overall about Sparta or Alexander.
Alexander and Genghis were very similar. Both wanted to end the threat to their people from a larger stronger country and did so successfully, then both went overboard with their methods and extent of conquest. It can be argued why did Alexander have to go to Afghanistan's mountains and into Pakistan. At least Genghis had a casus belli for attacking Khwarezm.
Also remember that the centre of world population has always been in Asia. Any massacre perpetrated there will have more casualties. And life could be (still is for some) very cheap in China. Look at the construction of the Great wall or the tomb of the Qin empreror.
Ceaser sacrificed the whole of Gaul for his own ambition and ego and blatantly broke Roman law (the Suebi were freinds of Rome). The men who killed him are literally depicted as being chewed by Satan in hell in Dante's divine comedy. Calling someone Brutus is still an insult like Judas.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Alexander (or Iskander, as he's called there) a bit of a "heroic figure" in the Middle East as well. He did after all promote the ideal of "Homonoia", the brotherhood of man, famously saying something along the lines that to him every "bad Greek" was a barbarian and every "good Persian" was a Hellene. In general, he attempted to weld the Hellenic and Persian cultures together in a grand Graeco-Persian empire. From a modern perspective, this is seen as a bit of a precursor to modern ethics of "human rights".
That said, it's true that the Mongol Empire too was very "modern" in the sense that it contained several religions and peoples, and the Mongols too made similar attempts to not indiscriminate between their many subject peoples. And it may be true that the warlike aspects of the Mongol dominion are perhaps emphasized too much while the positive sides like promotion of trade and religious freedom, not so much.
Before I start with this post I will just state that the Mongols wiped out 40,000,000 70,000,000 people in a span of less than a century while bringing next to nothing constructive(by themselves, I am not counting the non-Mongols under their dominion) to the development of the human species.
The Mongols slaughtered entire cities
So, slaughtering hundreds of thousands if not millions of people because of personal relations is proper justification for you?
Then you just justified the Holocaust.
Genghis khan was not a (especially)good general, he had good generals beneath him to lead his armies.
They do.
They absolutely do.
Yes, and all those casualties were like a normal Tuesday for a Mongol warlord.
We do hear about this, all the time.
Everyone who knows anything about those figures knows of these things, what are you even talking about?
Because they seem like better dudes, that is pretty much it.
This is an actual alleged quote by Genghis;
"The Greatest Happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters."
Seriously.
They don't lie, they state what was and people still decide that the Mongols were far worse.
What?
Nope, his amazing generals with multiple armies with which Genghis had nothing to do with, conquered most of it.
It's not.
We learn about them in history, it is completely natural for regions to focus on themselves, especially in schools.
Or do you expect Vietnamese schoolchildren to focus more on Finnish history?
Pathetic.
How is focusing more on your own history xenophobia?
The amount of "Mongols were awesome" threads on reddit and videos glorifying them on youtube completely debunk everything you are claiming here.
Most people don't know much about history, and it seems to me that your own notion on how people view it is obsolete for about a few decades at least.
In fact, I would argue that there is more of an anti-european/western sentiment nowadays than anything else.
Basically it's a 19th century worldview that bled into the public educational system and has persisted ever since.
Since this is mongol-related I think this is worth a post:
The reputation of the Mongolians is much worse than that of the Romans or Macedonians because the Mongolians did not bring any sort of improvement to the situation which had existed before their conquests.
That is due to the fact they were inferior in terms of culture and technology to most of the nations they conquered. Worse, the contact with the more advanced civilizations didn't change much their lifestyle.
The Franks, the Goths, the Vandals, etc copied the Romans after conquering chunks of the Roman empire. The Turks copied the Byzantines, became sedentary and learned to build magnificent structures like the Blue Mosque. The majority of the Huns, Mongolians or Tartars kept living in their tents.
It is not a "Western bias" against them. It is that the World would have continued to be the same in their absence. They brought nothing to compensate for the destruction they caused. That was not the case for the Romans, Macedonians or Arabs.
Last edited by Dromikaites; February 03, 2016 at 08:57 AM.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum