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

[Dromikaites]

ok i stopped reading at page 4 cause well there's way to much bias here from both sides ok lets see.

- The point about Mongol Conquests having the most deaths after WW2. Well Mongol conquests were from 1206-1337 so, 131 years, But yes they Still slaughtered millions. But WW2 killed more, in 6 years and 1 day.

The Mongols were considered excessively brutal by all their contemporaries. The 13th and 14th centuries weren't exactly peaceful in that part of the world, so people had recent wars in memory to compare with the Mongol invasions.

- Mongols remaining tent dwelling Nomads, really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakorum , nevermind the whole Yuan Dynasty or all the Khanates after the Dissolution of the unified Mongol empire.

Karakorum is illustrating my point perfectly: it existed only for as long as there was a Khan around. The fact it had been built shows cities were technically possible to be built in 13th century Mongolia.

The problem is cities were alien to the Mongolian lifestyle, so Karakorum wasn't imitated by the lesser chieftains and as a result urban life had to wait for the 1920s.

That the small clique who ruled over China, Persia or India had to live in cities doesn't meant the bulk of the Mongols wanted to have anything to do with sedentary lifestyle. Else they would have built several cities, not just Karakorum.

The land of Mongolia wasn't suitable for crops, but thanks to the Pax Mongolica the locals could have tended to cattle without fearing somebody would come to steal it.

That in turn would have allowed cattle trade to flourish. In the Middle Ages Moldavia's GDP was dominated by exports of cattle to distant places like Germany. The Moldavian merchants were driving their cow herds through Poland till Leipzig and were bringing back all sorts of manufactured products.

Likewise, the GDP of Medieval Wallachia was based mainly on exporting sheep to Constantinople. Flocks of sheep crossed the Ottoman territory unmolested thanks to the sipahi system of policing the countryside.

Had cattle trade really taken off in Mongolia, they would have had the vast Chinese market nearby, just like Moldavia had Germany while Wallachia had the Ottomans as main markets.

We know cattle trade alone would have bee enough to support a city in the Middle Ages. For instance the Wallachian - Ottoman trade trade in live sheep gave birth to a city called Targul de Floci (the name means "The Fleece Market") which was located near a ford on the Danube river, on the Wallachian bank.

Yet nothing of the kind happened in Mongolia. An artificial city was built just because Ogedei wanted it but the Mongols left on their own devices didn't take advantage of their own "Pax Mongolica".

- Mongols brought nothing to world? well yes that's agreeable for western civilization, because they barley ever met. Mongols brought plenty, but not as much as those before them, but they were not mindless barbarian hordes. e.g. religous tolerance, cultural acceptance

They simply didn't care about religion. But neither did Caesar or Alexander III Macedon.

- Mongols were mindless barbarian hordes? they had a advanced military system which was far beyond anything at their time, atleast in open warefare, please simply read a wiki article and itll show you this here ill even get you a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol...d_organization

Not so fast!

The Mongol tactics were simply unknown to many of their opponents. However it only took the Europeans one round of defeats to learn the lesson. The next attempted invasions were soundly defeated.

- Mongols destroyed every culture they encounted? The Mongolian empire routinely employed other cultures and religions, not only to keep their empire stable, but to learn from them and better advance their own people. why do you think they would bother not wiping out the entire populations when they could have if they were mindless barbarians they had no need for others. They also routinely embraced cultures different to their own, as evident from the Yuan dynasty to the various Muslim Khanates.

You are mixing two different things into one: the Mongolians were idiotic enough to kill much more people than necessary. After getting tired of killing, they enslaved those who remained.

Yes Mongols cause massive destruction and slaughter, Yes they were less advanced then most settled people, but what nomadic culture can possible compete with people who dont have to constantly move around?
Sure these things were correct but they were not Mindless Hordes slaughtering everything for no reason, nor did they not contribute to history and the world.

I do not fault them for being nomadic. I fault them for being much more destructive than it was needed (compared to others who had waged war in the same areas) and for not adopting in their own homeland the technical and cultural advances of those they had conquered. Thus the missed opportunities, like the one to build a few cities sustained by cattle trade with China.

[+Marius+]

Too bad that it wasnt Dschnighis Khan who sacked Ryazan, so its irrelevant for the thread.

You missed the point of it.

It is not related to the main topic, but the continuous downplaying of Mongol atrocities by the OP.

Based on this, it can also be said that the Mongol sources were more accurate.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Why would the Mongols, a vicious people by Marius's judgement, want to soften up their conquests? They want to be feared.

What better way to be feared than to murder a bunch of people?

Their enemies, on the other hand, are so tactically weak that they lie about the Mongols' brutality to cover up their shame.

You are hilarious.

It is as if you are trying to convince yourself.

- The point about Mongol Conquests having the most deaths after WW2. Well Mongol conquests were from 1206-1337 so, 131 years, But yes they Still slaughtered millions.

Most of it was done in a few conquests which, all put together, did not last nearly as much as the total span of their "age".

Also, the human population was lower at the time.

[removeduser_7456288]

Not so fast!

The Mongol tactics were simply unknown to many of their opponents. However it only took the Europeans only one round of defeats to learn the lesson. The next attempted invasions were soundly defeated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol...gainst_Mongols

Only the lesser Mongol generals were defeated. Europe crumbled under pressure of the more "famous" Mongol generals.

The Mongols were rolling over Europe before they withdrew after Ogedei's death, in which all the Khans had to go back to determine the next, as in Mongol tradition.

The later victories by Europe were due to the Mongols having been severely weakened due to infighting over the years.

You are hilarious.

It is as if you are trying to convince yourself.

Then provide an argument instead of dodging everything I say.

[LinusLinothorax]

You missed the point of it.

It is not related to the main topic, but the continuous downplaying of Mongol atrocities by the OP.

I see. I still would make a clear cut between Dschinghis and his successors tho, since those definetly did the one or other massacre (Though still no comparison to Timur), while i am not really aware of any big and uneccessary slaughter of civilians under Dschinghis. That said, i would support the OP in his theory that Dschinghis is falsely declared as gruesome and ruthless while Alexander and co. are celebrated.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Well, i also would trust Mongolian sources more than the sources of the invaded victims. For example, we have one scolary who describes one city beeing totaly destroyed and pillaged by the Mongols (Samarkand, i think?), but only a very short time later a Mongolian source states the wealth of its city, beeing an important city with precious goods coming from it. On that example i clearly would prefer the Mongolian source over the Islamic one.

[+Marius+]

Only the lesser Mongol generals were defeated. Europe crumbled under pressure of the more "famous" Mongol generals.

Nogai Khan was not a lesser Mongol general, he was one of the most powerful Mongol leaders of his time.

Also, how did Europe crumble?

Mongols barely entered Central Europe, let alone the West.

The Mongols were rolling over Europe before they withdrew after Ogedei's death, in which all the Khans had to go back to determine the next, as in Mongol tradition.

Not exactly true.

Batu and Subotai remained in their positions for over a year and actually stayed put as the Austrian Duke invaded western Hungary.

They spent nearly a year in Hungary without doing as much as a small raid into Germany.

The later victories by Europe were due to the Mongols having been severely weakened due to infighting over the years.

I would not say weakened as a whole army wise, they merely lacked the genius of Subotai and Batu.

Remember, Europe was not attacked by some lackluster army, it was the Mongolian dream team with their most elite warriors and their army was much larger than the Europeans had.

Then provide an argument instead of dodging everything I say.

I already did, it is you who are waving about with straw.

Well, i also would trust Mongolian sources more than the sources of the invaded victims.

Why?

For example, we have one scolary who describes one city beeing totaly destroyed and pillaged by the Mongols (Samarkand, i think?), but only a very short time later a Mongolian source states the wealth of its city, beeing an important city with precious goods coming from it.

Which city was that?

Provide the source instead of selling mist.

On that example i clearly would prefer the Mongolian source over the Islamic one.

Sure, that is why you should also only rely on crusader sources when dealing with the engagements in the Levant...
Or Japanese sources on their conquest of Asia in World War 2...

[fd7s]

The Mongols were considered excessively brutal by all their contemporaries. The 13th and 14th centuries weren't exactly peaceful in that part of the world, so people had recent wars in memory to compare with the Mongol invasions.

Karakorum is illustrating my point perfectly: it existed only for as long as there was a Khan around. The fact it had been built shows cities were technically possible to be built in 13th century Mongolia.

The problem is cities were alien to the Mongolian lifestyle, so Karakorum wasn't imitated by the lesser chieftains and as a result urban life had to wait for the 1920s.

That the small clique who ruled over China, Persia or India had to live in cities doesn't meant the bulk of the Mongols wanted to have anything to do with sedentary lifestyle. Else they would have built several cities, not just Karakorum.

The land of Mongolia wasn't suitable for crops, but thanks to the Pax Mongolica the locals could have tended to cattle without fearing somebody would come to steal it.

That in turn would have allowed cattle trade to flourish. In the Middle Ages Moldavia's GDP was dominated by exports of cattle to distant places like Germany. The Moldavian merchants were driving their cow herds through Poland till Leipzig and were bringing back all sorts of manufactured products.

Likewise, the GDP of Medieval Wallachia was based mainly on exporting sheep to Constantinople. Flocks of sheep crossed the Ottoman territory unmolested thanks to the sipahi system of policing the countryside.

Had cattle trade really taken off in Mongolia, they would have had the vast Chinese market nearby, just like Moldavia had Germany while Wallachia had the Ottomans as main markets.

We know cattle trade alone would have bee enough to support a city in the Middle Ages. For instance the Wallachian - Ottoman trade trade in live sheep gave birth to a city called Targul de Floci (the name means "The Fleece Market") which was located near a ford on the Danube river, on the Wallachian bank.

Yet nothing of the kind happened in Mongolia. An artificial city was built just because Ogedei wanted it but the Mongols left on their own devices didn't take advantage of their own "Pax Mongolica".

They simply didn't care about religion. But neither did Caesar or Alexander III Macedon.

Not so fast!

The Mongol tactics were simply unknown to many of their opponents. However it only took the Europeans one round of defeats to learn the lesson. The next attempted invasions were soundly defeated.

You are mixing two different things into one: the Mongolians were idiotic enough to kill much more people than necessary. After getting tired of killing, they enslaved those who remained.

I do not fault them for being nomadic. I fault them for being much more destructive than it was needed (compared to others who had waged war in the same areas) and for not adopting in their own homeland the technical and cultural advances of those they had conquered. Thus the missed opportunities, like the one to build a few cities sustained by cattle trade with China.

What your saying makes sense and is true in a lot of ways except in the mass slaughter and refusal to adapt.

- In Mongolia yes they didnt adapt, but why would they when there is no reason too.
- Yes they only built one major city which is as you say artifical, but they didnt need to, they simply moved into the citys they conquered and adapted that lifestyle out of mongolia, the only place Mongolians stayed completely true to how they were before Genghis Khan was Mongolia, Mongolians in other areas adapted and adopted various different cultures. Your point was that they had to, well then what is the difference between them and the franks, who had to adopt Roman culture, or literally any other empire that has conquered vastly larger and more populous areas then their own?
- Your point that they simply didnt care about religion, sure thats valid, doesnt take away the fact that they allowed religous freedom unlike the Romans, nor does it take away the fact that you completely ignored my point that they accepted other cultures and used them for advancement of themselves. They were in a way a Multicultural Empire.
- Yes Mongol Tactics were unknown to their opponents, it did not stop them from conquering the two Chinese Dynasties who had learned their tactics through various wars with them. Mongol tactics were simply superior in open warfare, and when they reached a obstacle which their tactics were inferior, they adapted the tactics of those they conquered in order to advance their war machine.
- The Mongolians weren't "idiotic to kill much more people then necessary", they were just simply brutal in thought, they saw those that would not submit or had fought against them and then surrendered as useless to them, after all if someone fought and refused to submit to them first why would they bother staying loyal after a while? they didnt enslave those who remained, they created tribute states for those that submitted without fight, yes they tributed them heavily but they were treated in essence, how they were treated by their previous rulers.

Anyway i do agree with you tho, except for the much more destructive part (that was a product of the way they lived and thought), i also fault them for not adopting in their homeland the technical and cultural advances as those they conquered, they could have simply had both nomadic culture and city culture if they really wanted to remain true to their roots and advance themselves in their own country.

btw i appreciate how you are actually not trying to be biased and are using what you know to state things that actually make sense and further your point, unlike the others in the threat who degrade each other and just rant.

[removeduser_7456288]

Sure, that is why you should also only rely on crusader sources when dealing with the engagements in the Levant...
Or Japanese sources on their conquest of Asia in World War 2...

The crusaders had to pass off as "holy", and the Japanese were in the modern era where that brutality was highly looked down upon...

In the Mongols' time what they did was not too significant, and the Mongols were known to use fear, sometimes in the form of lies, to scare their enemies. I would argue then that the Mongols are biased against themselves due to this. However, when they do not claim to have caused violence while their enemies say they did, it can be said that they are not lying, as the Mongols would have gladly agreed with their enemies to spread fear.

What better way to be feared than to murder a bunch of people?

You're just proving my point, they want to be feared.

Nogai Khan was not a lesser Mongol general, he was one of the most powerful Mongol leaders of his time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogai_Khan

Where is the defeat?

Also, how did Europe crumble?

Mongols barely entered Central Europe, let alone the West.

Obviously, I was referring to East Europe, where the Mongols destroyed the European Knights easily. They only had any real trouble with the amount of forts and terrain in Europe, although they managed to inflict far more casualties on their enemies. What other European power at that time would be able to fight the Mongols on even ground?

I already did, it is you who are waving about with straw.

Then tell me how the Mongols are bad for killing more people when the US killed more people than ISIS.

Also tell me how the Mongols, when not completely divided and weakened (like when the cossacks won) are not tactically superior to most of their enemies, disregarding exceptional generals like Tran Hung Dao of Vietnam.

[+Marius+]

I would argue then that the Mongols are biased against themselves due to this.

Wow, just...wow.

You're just proving my point, they want to be feared.

No...your point was the exact opposite...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogai_Khan

Where is the defeat?

How about you actually start reading some actual history instead of limiting yourself to wikipedia?

Nogai's armies were defeated multiple times on the fields in Poland, first by Duke Leszek near the Świętokrzyskie Mountains, then shortly afterwards at the second battle of Łagów, after which the last blow was dealt at Stary Sącz, where the small detachment of Hungarian knights obliterated the remains of the Mongol army.

Prior to that invasion of Poland, Nogai invaded Hungary, but was defeated in battle by king Ladislaus IV.

He also invaded Serbia...and managed to loose even there.

Though, he still remained very powerful regardless of these defeats.

Obviously, I was referring to East Europe, where the Mongols destroyed the European Knights easily.

They did not destroy knights easily, firstly there were barely any knights in eastern Europe, secondly, the Mongols themselves had serious issues with dealing against European knights, Batu khan was nearly killed in Mohi because he entered the fray against them and lost a lot of elite kheshigs and baaturs, even his personal bodyguards.

The issue with knights is that they were far to few to engage the tens of thousands of Mongol professional horsemen.

What other European power at that time would be able to fight the Mongols on even ground?

None.

...well depends on what you call "even ground"...in the case of both parties having an equal amount of professional soldiers on the field..then;

All.

Then tell me how the Mongols are bad for killing more people when the US killed more people than ISIS.

That is a sad attempt at strawmanning and you know it.

This level of discussion is becoming lower than freshly cut grass.

[removeduser_7456288]

...well depends on what you call "even ground"...in the case of both parties having an equal amount of professional soldiers on the field..then;

All.

The Mongols were known for defeating much larger armies than themselves under capable generals.

That is a sad attempt at strawmanning and you know it.

This level of discussion is becoming lower than freshly cut grass.

No, you just can't provide a rebuttal.

Wow, just...wow.

I find it hilarious that most of the things I post are replied with things like the above. You don't even bother to give proof on most of them.

[+Marius+]

The Mongols were known for defeating much larger armies than themselves under capable generals.

So were everyone else.

Capable generals defeating larger armies is not an exclusive trait that only Mongols possess.

No, you just can't provide a rebuttal.

I already did provide it to your initial statement, it is your issue that you do not read.

I find it hilarious that most of the things I post are replied with things like the above.

Nope, most of your posts are replied to differently.

You don't even bother to give proof on most of them.

Because it is not something to refute.

I cannot refute your own personal opinion on your own feelings and view on how you yourself view bias or other "stuff".

Thus, I reply with simple wave offs and laugh, because that is all that those sentences deserve.

[removeduser_7456288]

You laughed when I said, "The Mongols treated those they ruled with tolerance." Did they not?

It's not like others didn't destroy cities.

Most Roman towns were destroyed by invading Avar and Croat armies in the 7th century, with the survivors retreating to the islands, mountains and Dubrovnik

http://www.iexplore.com/travel-guide...ry-and-culture
https://books.google.com/books?id=7O...0towns&f=false

[Diocle]

In my opinion, it's the ancient hate between Nomads and sedentary civilizations, it's a matter of two different, almost opposites, models of social organization and moral values; Nomads developed different values compared to sedentary peoples, their economy was different, their social composition was different, the concept of ownership of land was very different, it's a sad story of two different models of civilization, incompatible because opposite.
Still today in Europe, a lot of people hate the Gypsies, they say that the Gypsies are thieves, idlers and criminals, and the Gypsies refuse a full integration with the sedentary people, so the relations are not easy.
The Mongols ruled over China, they became sedentary but, can we say that they fully integrated with the Chinese society and with Chinese culture, history and traditions? The same question can be advanced about the Huns, even when they settled in Western Europe, they were not able to turn themselves into a real sedentary nation, belonging to the millenary European tradition.
Europe and China were civilizations based on landowners, powerful political structures, based on large agrarian estates, if you don't recognise the ownership of the land, it's very difficult to find a common basis on which building a new form of convivence, so the reciprocal hate grows incessantly.
Even in the States the issues between farmers and ranchers was a serious issue when at the end of XIX century, thousands of migrant farmers from Germany and Europe began to fence the land, asking for new lands to settle down their families, grabbing their piece of American dream, .. it's not an easy story the relation between farmers and breeders, the farmers are tied to the land, the breeders need to move, they can't stay too much on the same land, .. a bad story, really a dangerous meeting between opposites.

Anyway, at the end, the sedentary peoples won the match, so they wrote the whole story which became "The History".

[+Marius+]

It's not like

I find your attempts at sidelining the thread to be tedious at best.

You provided absolutely nothing of worth so far, so when someone else does, you fall back on nitpickery and personal banter.

Quite sad really.

It's not like others didn't destroy cities.

http://www.iexplore.com/travel-guide...ry-and-culture
https://books.google.com/books?id=7O...0towns&f=false

You just used two tourist travel guides as sources for your arguments.

This has passed beyond entertainment and comedy, this just became tragic.

[removeduser_7456288]

This has passed beyond entertainment and comedy, this just became tragic.

Until you can prove them false, they are correct. You provided absolutely nothing of worth so far, so when someone else does, you fall back on nitpickery and personal banter.


Answer my question.

You laughed when I said, "The Mongols treated those they ruled with tolerance." Did they not?

tell me how the Mongols are bad for killing more people when the US killed more people than ISIS.

tell me how the Mongols, when not completely divided and weakened (like when the cossacks won) are not tactically superior to most of their enemies, disregarding exceptional generals like Tran Hung Dao of Vietnam.

If you cannot answer these, it means you have no clear rebuttal.

How about you actually start reading some actual history instead of limiting yourself to wikipedia?

Funny, as wikipedia is someone else's written history on the Mongols. Someone who was not affected by them and would not be biased. On the other hand, the "historical sources" you claim to be true are also someone else's written history on the Mongols. Except this time, they were directly affected by the Mongols and would be biased.


You say the Mongols won because they had superior numbers, when most of their engagements involved them being outnumbered greatly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

You also call Genghis Khan a mediocre general.

A historical museum would disagree. http://genghiskhan.fieldmuseum.org/b...battle-tactics
"Genghis Khan and his generals were brilliant tacticians"

Who should I believe, a museum dedicated to history, or you?

- The Mongols would light extra fires to make the enemy believe they are more numerous
- Feigned retreat would confuse their enemies
- The Mongols were extremely disciplined, dividing up into groups in battle and maneuvering around to strike at the enemy. It was so chaotic that it seemed that they were coming out of nowhere.
- From a college:http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongol...nquests_2b.htm
Do I believe a college or you?

If you are able to defend your case on all of these, which you clearly will not be able to, then I will agree with your position. Otherwise, you have provided nothing.

"No one knows with any certainty how many people died during Genghis Khan’s wars, in part because the Mongols propagated their vicious image as a way of spreading terror"

http://www.history.com/topics/genghis-khan

"He also forbade the selling and kidnapping of women, banned the enslavement of any Mongol and made livestock theft punishable by death. Moreover, Genghis Khan ordered the adoption of a writing system, conducted a regular census, granted diplomatic immunity to foreign ambassadors and allowed freedom of religion well before that idea caught on elsewhere."

http://www.history.com/topics/genghis-khan

"While Genghis Khan was known for his brutality, he often ordered his troops not to harm artisans and to leave clerics alone, respecting holy men of other faiths."

http://www.livescience.com/43260-genghis-khan.html

“Before the appearance of (Genghis Khan) they had no chief or ruler. Each tribe or two tribes lived separately; they were not united with one another, and there was constant fighting and hostility between them,” Juvayni wrote.

http://www.livescience.com/43260-genghis-khan.html

Lmfao you want more sources here you go. History.com, a museum, a university, and even a science website xD, or Marius? hmmmmmm...


I will not be biased

"aristocrats and resisting soldiers were killed."

http://www.history.com/topics/genghis-khan

But then again, what use would the mongols have with people who would likely rebel and people trying to kill them?

Again, if you can provide proof in rebuttal to all of these and at the same time disprove them, you win the argument.

[athanaric]

Funny, as wikipedia is someone else's written history on the Mongols. Someone who was not affected by them and would not be biased. On the other hand, the "historical sources" you claim to be true are also someone else's written history on the Mongols. Except this time, they were directly affected by the Mongols and would be biased.

There is actual, peer-reviewed scientific literature on the Mongols, you should read that before making arguments or referring to wikipedia or other online resources. It'll also help you judge the accuracy and value of the primary sources.

[Ringeck]

You guys need to calm down and stop the quote mining and strawmanning (by both sides). It's not making any of you look good.

Alexander the Great has a pretty good reputation worldwide since he has had an extremely good reputation, for a conqueror, in most of the areas he was known in throughout history (and because he seems to have been a very special guy, to put it mildly, although his legend is bigger than he likely was). Caesar, likewise, although to a lesser extent. Both were certainly no strangers to brutality, and neither were the romans or greeks in general. Then again, if Alexander had followed the advise of his teacher Aristotle (if those sources are to be believed) his conquests would have looked very different to our modern eyes.

The Mongol Empire has a pretty bad reputation worldwide for a number of reasons, one of which being their rather excessive brutality to sedentary people they conquered even based on the standards of their time. There were positive aspects of the mongol conquests as well, and they should not be glossed over, but in general the view of the mongols in many areas they conquered aren't good, even today. Even their descendants such as the Mughal rulers tended to distance themselves from the original mongols' atrocities as they were perceived in their day (this included the actions of Turko-Mongols such as Timur). The general public's perception of the mongol empire is, in fact, only really good in regions with present-day mongolian populations. Western historians of late have been some of the more positive ones, attempting to counter-balance the image of the mongol empire as a rapacious atrocity-machine. Sometimes they go a bit too far. Sometimes they point out things that have been ignored in the past.

[+Marius+]

Until you can prove them false, they are correct.

No, until you provide an actual source instead of a tourist travel guide, I don't have to do anything.

Answer my question.

You laughed when I said, "The Mongols treated those they ruled with tolerance." Did they not?

Where did I laugh?

tell me how the Mongols are bad for killing more people when the US killed more people than ISIS.

Because of who they killed and why.

tell me how the Mongols, when not completely divided and weakened (like when the cossacks won) are not tactically superior to most of their enemies, disregarding exceptional generals like Tran Hung Dao of Vietnam.

Did I state otherwise?

You have not proven them false

First you have to prove them right for me to actually have an obligation to prove them false.

why are you so hostile? Calm down.

How did I show any signs of not being calm?

You are exactly the type of person I was referring to originally. Unable to provide arguments yet you still loathe the Mongols for killing, something everyone has done. Out of everyone I've talked about Mongols with, you hate them the most.

I actually provided historical sources and stated some well known facts about them.

Funny, as wikipedia is someone else's written history on the Mongols. Someone who was not affected by them and would not be biased. On the other hand, the "historical sources" you claim to be true are also someone else's written history on the Mongols. Except this time, they were directly affected by the Mongols and would be biased.

So you are arguing that contemporary sources are a lesser source of information than wikipedia?

You say the Mongols won because they had superior numbers, when most of their engagements involved them being outnumbered greatly.

I stated that for their invasion of Europe, which is true.

- The Mongols would light extra fires to make the enemy believe they are more numerous
- Feigned retreat would confuse their enemies
- The Mongols were extremely disciplined, dividing up into groups in battle and maneuvering around to strike at the enemy. It was so chaotic that it seemed that they were coming out of nowhere.
- From a college:http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongol...nquests_2b.htm
Do I believe a college or you?

You do realize I am not arguing against any of that?

You call me a supporter of a violent people yet you endorse religious conversion by the sword.

lol, what?

Lmfao you want more sources here you go. History.com, a museum, a university, and even a science website xD, or Marius? hmmmmmm...

Those are not proper sources, those are quotes from websites.

How about you actually start reading some history books or at least try quoting some actual historians.

[Colossus]

I see. I still would make a clear cut between Dschinghis and his successors tho, since those definetly did the one or other massacre (Though still no comparison to Timur), while i am not really aware of any big and uneccessary slaughter of civilians under Dschinghis. That said, i would support the OP in his theory that Dschinghis is falsely declared as gruesome and ruthless while Alexander and co. are celebrated.


Well, i also would trust Mongolian sources more than the sources of the invaded victims. For example, we have one scolary who describes one city beeing totaly destroyed and pillaged by the Mongols (Samarkand, i think?), but only a very short time later a Mongolian source states the wealth of its city, beeing an important city with precious goods coming from it. On that example i clearly would prefer the Mongolian source over the Islamic one.

This is incorrect. The 'Mongolian' source you refer to is actually a Chinese traveller. The wealth he mentions in Samarkand is described as being the result of an influx of Chinese craftsmen. Regardless of that, Samarkand was not totally destroyed anyway; only those in the citadel which refused to surrender were apparently killed, whereas the bulk of the population were not.

Balkh, Merv, Nishapur and Herat were all at some stage virtually wiped out by Chinggis or Tolui - these were some of the largest cities in the Middle East at the time. There are many more examples elsewhere, though as someone has pointed out, Chingis was not necessarily leading these campaigns directly.

I'm not sure what 'Mongolian sources' you are talking about, as the only directly written Mongol source is the Secret History, which has limitations in terms of describing events and also stops fairly early in the Mongol conquests.

However, as I have already mentioned, the most detailed sources for this brutally were written by Persian authors (notably Juvaini and Rashid al-Din) who served the Mongols in an official capacity (and in some cases had access to now lost Mongol sources such as the Golden Book), yet do not shy away from the destruction caused at all (and actually largely agree with sources who were direct victims of the Mongols). These sources are openly and sometimes excessively favourable to the Mongols (in complete contrast to other Islamic and European sources), yet describe the devastation in considerable detail nonetheless. Why? Because it is undeniable.

[+Marius+]

The confusion with Samarkand comes from the fact that the 20 000 man garrison that protected the city betrayed the city and went to the Mongols to offer themselves as soldiers.

Seeing that they easily broke their oath and could do so the same again under their command, the Mongols first accepted their offer, disarmed them, rounded them up, and then massacred them on a plain next to the city.

Thus, the massacre was of the soldiers sent to garrison the city, not the citizens themselves.

Samarkand itself was not razed, it was merely plundered from all its wealth but the citizens were largely unharmed because they opened the gates during the last assault and surrendered.

The Mongols did however, enslaved thousands of them, nearly all craftsmen and anyone of any use to them was sent as a slave back to Mongolia.

[Mangalore]

You laughed when I said, "The Mongols treated those they ruled with tolerance." Did they not?

It's not like others didn't destroy cities.
...

Yes, and actually a good number of other people got a bad rap because of their war tactics as well. Huns, Vandals and Goths for example are all examples of the migration period whose names are associated with barbarity (with Goths not so much brutality but still considered as an inferior culture) in later times.

I would say to some extent it is a question of whether a seemingly advanced civilization conquered a supposedly inferior nation or if the reverse happened. So Fall of the Roman empire bad, conquest of Persia by Alexander neutral (as Persia and the Hellenic culture lateron is seen en par with each other), conquest of Gaul, Germania and Britain by Romans seen as good although Caesar killed a ton of people but Rome advanced those territories far beyond its tribal origins.