|
Post by vgambler33 on Jan 14, 2006 0:57:15 GMT -5
Wednesday, January 05, 2005 Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World
Embrace the inner Genghis
A new biography argues that the maligned ruler of the Mongols was a great entrepreneur and social reformer
By Gregory M. Lamb The Christian Science Monitor March 23, 2004
He was a sadistic hedonist hiding beneath a fur-rimmed hat. A prairie bandit sporting a Fu Manchu moustache and a nasty disposition who set loose a horde of barbarians to loot the civilized world.
No, no, all wrong. That's what happens when you let your enemies define you, as modern-day political candidates know. The Mongols were always secretive about their revered leader, the man called Genghis Khan. To this day, his burial site has not been found. Over the years, as the Mongols' political influence subsided, anti-Genghis, anti-Mongol propaganda worsened. It became so bad that by the early 20th century the followers of the dubious science of eugenics coined "Mongoloid" as a term to describe retarded children, who, they surmised, must have inherited defective Mongol traits.
. . .
In "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" [scholar Jack Weatherford] aims to set the record straight. Take the Renaissance, for example. You probably think it was Europe rediscovering the lost knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome? Well, yes, a little. But it was really the paper, printing, gunpowder, and compass brought from the east by Mongols that set Europeans' thinking caps atwirl. Mongols even changed fashion, convincing European men to abandon their silly robes and put on practical pants.
. . .
"On every level and from any perspective, the scale and scope of Genghis Khan's accomplishments challenge the limits of imagination and tax the resources of scholarly explanation," Weatherford enthuses.
He has plenty to say to back up that statement. In 25 years under Khan, the Mongol army, never bigger than 100,000, conquered more lands and people than the Romans did in 400 years. All other military geniuses -- Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon -- pale before the great Mongol leader, who developed innovative fighting techniques and elicited total loyalty from his troops.
. . .
Beyond the battlefield, Genghis established religious freedom throughout his realm (many Christians were family members or held high positions, along with Buddhists, Muslims, and others). He created a free-trade zone between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. He ran a meritocracy: He held the wealthy and high-born to the same standard of justice as peasants, not hesitating to promote shepherds and camel tenders to generals. He judged people on their individual merits and loyalty, not by family, ethnic, or religious ties -- a revolutionary act in the family-centric Mongol society, Weatherford says.
True, Mongols didn't create much of anything themselves. But they were oh-so-modern as disciples of the Knowledge Economy. They treated people who had learning and skills as important commodities to be acquired and utilized. They had no interest in turning conquered peoples into Mongols. Instead, they made sure that goods, ideas, and people traveled safely across most of the known world, unleashing an era of unprecedented innovation and prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by personx on Jan 14, 2006 7:27:23 GMT -5
It all sounds very nice, but the reality of the Mongol Empire was not so great. Sure, the Mongols conquered almost all of the Eurasian landmass, but the Empire utterly lacked cohesion. First, it was subdivided into four smaller khanates, and not long after that, those khanates began to war amongst themselves. The Mongol Empire tends to be overrated.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 16, 2006 3:10:52 GMT -5
It all sounds very nice, but the reality of the Mongol Empire was not so great. Sure, the Mongols conquered almost all of the Eurasian landmass, but the Empire utterly lacked cohesion. First, it was subdivided into four smaller khanates, and not long after that, those khanates began to war amongst themselves. The Mongol Empire tends to be overrated. Sure, the golden horde wasn't exactly steeped in culture, but thats not what the articles about. It's about the much maligned view of mongol suzerain rule as being barbaric and lawless etc, when in fact, as the article suggests, it was actually progressive. This isn't very controversial, I wouldn't think. After all, Russians and Poles even allied with asiatic mongols, against fellow europeans, the teutonic order. Battle of Tannenberg [see if you can find the mongols]:
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 16, 2006 4:31:11 GMT -5
I only see two Mongols in the bottom left hand corner.
|
|
|
Post by henerte on Jan 16, 2006 5:23:08 GMT -5
The correct name for this battle is Battle of Grunwald. The name Tannenberg was created by german history because 500 years later there was a similar battle in this area (this time around Tannenberg) where german army defeated russian army and thus "took revenge' on Eastern Europe for the Grunwald defeat.
Furthermore, it was not any Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe confrontation but rather a fight between Poland (supported by allies) and coalition of western european knights (that were hired by the Teutonic Order) and teutonic knights themselves.
Lithuanians were merely a light cavalry and the reason why Russians are listed as participants in this battle is because there were also some banners from Smolensk that took part in the battle (Smolensk is situated in western Russia). There were also some Tatar skirmishers hired by the king of Poland - they were also hired during wars against Sweden, for example, or even Turkey, so it was nothing exceptional.
Also, calling Germans fellows when talking about history of Poland is a bit strange.
|
|
|
Post by personx on Jan 16, 2006 5:42:24 GMT -5
I appreciate the comments about the Tatars/Golden Horde helping out against the Germans. My point, however, is that the "Pax Mongolicum" alluded to in the original post was relatively short-lived, at least in the sense of a truly unified Mongol Empire.
Just long enough for Marco Polo to do his thing.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 16, 2006 5:57:46 GMT -5
The correct name for this battle is Battle of Grunwald. The name Tannenberg was created by german history because 500 years later there was a similar battle in this area (this time around Tannenberg) where german army defeated russian army and thus "took revenge' on Eastern Europe for the Grunwald defeat. Lithuanians were merely a light cavalry and the reason why Russians are listed as participants in this battle is because there were also some banners from Smolensk that took part in the battle (Smolensk is situated in western Russia). There were also some Tatar skirmishers hired by the king of Poland - they were also hired during wars against Sweden, for example, or even Turkey, so it was nothing exceptional. Also, calling Germans fellows when talking about history of Poland is a bit strange. The battle can be refered to as tannenberg or Grunwald, since it was said to have taken place between the two. Tannenberg, now being stebark. It's either or, and I am sure it was refered as tannenberg long before the famous WWI battle. Strange? I said Germans were fellow europeans, as in the adjective, not the noun.
|
|
|
Post by blueskygod on Jan 16, 2006 6:02:17 GMT -5
If only ogweday khan hadnt died. you all know you would've been speaking mongolia n niow you imperialistic bastards! hail the grey wolf clan! f*ck yeah!
|
|
|
Post by personx on Jan 16, 2006 6:16:44 GMT -5
Mongolians have been getting lively lately. ;D Could this be a sign of a resurgence
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 16, 2006 6:17:10 GMT -5
If only ogweday khan hadnt died. you all know you would've been speaking mongolia n niow you imperialistic bastards! hail the grey wolf clan! f*ck yeah! Hehe, have you been smoking the Scythian ritual herbs again?
|
|
|
Post by blueskygod on Jan 18, 2006 4:47:51 GMT -5
Hehe whty dont u go and pray to your God to save you from the Mongol "demons" who you couldnt even defeat once!
|
|
|
Post by blueskygod on Jan 18, 2006 4:48:35 GMT -5
btw the mongols today are just chinese buddhisht nomads called the khalka. they are not direct descendatns of genghis khan
|
|
|
Post by blueskygod on Jan 18, 2006 4:48:54 GMT -5
and yes i have been smoking the scythian ritual herbs
|
|
|
Post by blueskygod on Jan 18, 2006 4:50:33 GMT -5
hail turan. surrender to its might, europeans and be enslaved or killed. Resist not for it is the will of Tenghri, the Great God of the Blue Sky!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 18, 2006 5:32:23 GMT -5
Hehe whty dont u go and pray to your God to save you from the Mongol "demons" who you couldnt even defeat once! If that was directed toward me, I don't believe in God, so try again, you knave . Also, how would modern Mongols just be a bunch of Chinese folk when they speak Mongolian and look different from Chinese people? I posted a huge thread of Mongolians a while back, and they don't look like transplanted Chinese people.
|
|