Why Genghis Khan’s tomb can’t be found
bbc.com
bbc.com
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-t...
It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
I don't think it was luck. It was probably the lack of cars ;)
https://www.geochemsoc.org/files/6214/1261/1770/SP-2_271-284...
(If for no other reason than the wild anachronism; Khan was born in 1162).
>propel or carry along by force in a specified direction
You can say the same with Japan.
Mongols never invaded it cause of bad weather.
What they did to Iran (formerly Persia) and the middle east can not be forgotten. Killing a mother while she was breastfeeding her infant baby? Even animals don't do that. I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
Don't look too closely into your own ancestry; the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history.
I think you're forgetting about the fact that in all human history, Genghis stands out as one of the cruelest and most violent rulers. As far as I know, Iranians (Persians) never did the same thing to other nations, not even for revenge. I guess that's the main reason saving Iranians from "existential despair".
"The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within the interior space of two narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks) joined together one on top of the other with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey, and more honey would be poured on the victim to attract insects, with special attention devoted to the eyes, ears, mouth, face, genitals, and anus. In some cases, the executioner would mix milk and honey and pour that mixture all over the victim. The victim would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects which would eat and breed within the victim's exposed flesh, which—pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects—became increasingly gangrenous. The individual would lie naked, covered from head to toe in milk, honey, and his own feces. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that fatal dehydration or starvation did not occur. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation, and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.[1]."
"Herodotus accounts for the turn of Harpagus' support to a version of the cannibal feast of Thyestes.[1] He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane, would give birth to a king who would overthrow him, ordered Harpagus to expose the child at birth. Harpagus, reluctant to spill his own royal blood, gave the child (Cyrus) to a shepherd named Mitradates,[2] who raised him as his own son.
Ten years later, when Cyrus was discovered alive, Astyages cruelly punished Harpagus by killing Harpagus' only son and feeding him to the courtier during a banquet. It is said that Harpagus did not react during the banquet, other than to gather the pieces of his son and remove them for burial."
Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
> He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane ...
Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
I don't understand how it's a fake account. Would you mind keeping the discussion on a civil level?
> Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
Yes, the Persians and the Greeks were at war and enemies. In fact, that was part of my point. The portrayal you have of Genghis Khan comes from his enemies too.
> Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I understand how if you're not familiar with Herodotus it can be hard to believe anything he says since he does enjoy to add details to personify stories. That is no reason to discount everything he says though, most of ancient written history is embellished. There's a lot of work on the reliabiliy of his texts if you're interested.
> I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
Uh...absolutely? There is nothing uncivil about in and it's literally on the same topic that your post was about.
Er... not sure what animals you're referring to?
Predators in general seem to be quite happy to chow down on prey regardless of what activity it's involved in at the time.
I would suspect rather easily, because they didn't do it.
Of course they do. A bunch of helpless babies and a mother distracted by them would be a windfall for any predator.
> I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
There is not a human being alive who doesn't have terrible atrocity in their bloodline. Genghis Khan isn't more evil just because he happened to be more successful than most.
Why should they have trouble "living with that"? Are you saying they're responsible?
Genghis Khan is simply Mongolia’s greatest hero. The West recalls only what he conquered, but Mongolians remember what he created. His empire connected East and West, allowing the Silk Road to flourish. His rule enshrined the concepts of diplomatic immunity and religious freedom. He established a reliable postal service and the use of paper money. Genghis Khan didn’t just conquer the world, he civilised it.
By Conn Iggulden
> It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
It was dumb luck that the first major european campaign ended. But it was also lots of diplomatic negotiations and the Pope's willingness to "humble" himself before the "Great Khans". Because of the christian tradition of "Render under Caesar" set by jesus himself in the new testament, Popes and christian leaders were willing to "bow before the khan". Whereas other leaders ( muslim, chinese, russians, etc ) refused for variety of reasons and were conquered. Also, the pope had the benefit of seeing mongols crush one empire after another by the time the mongols reached europe, so they weren't blinded by hubris like the Khwarazmian empire. For example, when the mongols sent a delegation to the shah of khwarazmian, he had them tortured and killed and sent a humiliated surviving diplomat back to genghis khan. The pope knew about what happened to the shah and the khwarazmian empire and he knew to act accordingly. When the mongols sent a delegate to Rome, he didn't have them tortured and killed. Instead the pope sent out his own delegation to develop political ties. Even trying to form alliances with the mongols against the muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum
The history of western civilization changed completely because the "humility" of the pope and the catholic church. It was the friendly relations with the mongol empire which gave italians lucrative trade relations within the mongol empire which led to the rise of the medicis, the italian renaissance and a rebirth of europe from the doldrums of the dark ages.
Arguably one of the most important events in human history is the many trade delegations the pope sent to mongolia to get favorable trade deals with the mongol empire. Without that, we don't have italian renaissance. And the collapse of the mongol empire and especially the golden horde which led to a completely severing of links between italy/europe to the rest of asia is what led to the age of european exploration. It was the collapse of the overland trade routes protected by the mongols that led to europe's search for a sea route. It isn't a coincidence that columbus set for sail a few years after Ivan the Great defeated the golden horde in 1480 and ended mongol rule over the rus.
In any case it's a geographic name coextensive with a modern polity now, and a modern speaker using it to identify a geographic location even for events that predate the modern polity is normal and clear.
See https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Mongols-have-a-reasonable-chan... especially the answer by Tim ONeil.
That's a pretty bad answer. Look at the conquest of Southern Song - the Mongols were operating far from the steppe, they were up against a large number of fortified positions, and in terrain that wasn't well suited for them (Southern China is not "open country", like Tim ONeill claims). It also didn't fall quickly (the way he says the centralized polities fell), it took decades of devastating war.
It's true that people often exaggerate how close Western Europe came to being conquered by the Mongols. But people arguing against that idea often throw around just as much bad history.
In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol invasion...it had 3. This meant the Mongols could capture the kingdom with a handful of simultaneous sustained sieges. In contrast, at this time, there were hundreds of castles in Europe, most built to withstand years-long sieges, and most within reinforcement range of their neighbors.
Furthermore, Western Europe back then was heavily forested. Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films. Traversing this wilderness would have been possible but difficult for small groups. For an army of mounted horsemen, it would have been extremely difficult. For an army of horsemen each requiring multiple horses, it would have been effectively impossible.
Combining the lack of grazing pasture for the horses, the wild forests preventing the Mongols from utilizing their hit-and-run tactics to any meaningful effect, and the necessity to carry out thousands of sieges and blockades against a well-fed and entrenched enemy, the Mongols had no chance to invade Western Europe.
I think that's incredibly misleading. The Song dynasty had numerous impressive city walls, forts, fortified passes, etc. There's no reason to act as if the only worthwhile fortified structures are castles (should we overlook the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople because they weren't castles?).
> Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films.
Again, this is very misleading. We're talking about a period after most of the Great Clearance. It's also true that many of the woods that were left were maintained woods.
IIRC the Song also didn't have great castle making technology. Didn't they do earthen fortifications reinforced with clay bricks? And weren't the walled cities typically sitting on plains, possibly without a moat? That's a lot easier to attack than a composite stone wall sitting on a mountain.
And calling their tactics "hit and run" is a huge oversimplification, as is the rest of your points.
With the higher density came a higher density of fortifications. With a low density the Mongols could just bypass anything they couldn't take, but with enough of these forts an invading army opened itself to attack from every direction.
The newer European fortresses were also a lot harder for the Mongols to attack. IIRC the Hungarians had 5 in the region the Mongols attacked and none of them fell. Germany had thousands, and they were generally higher quality. Even if they could get inside the city it was attackers in leather against defenders in plate or chain. The Mongols had no real advantages in a siege situation since they couldn't bring their coordination or mobility to bear.
And you can't trap the mongols, their mobile army lived off the land and moved far too fast with a lethality that european armies couldn't deal with.
The death of Chenggis Khan was the only thing that saved Europe from a massacre and enslavement by the mongols.
It's easy to mythologize the Mongols, but when they tried to move on castle builders in the levant and Eastern Europe they got their asses kicked. Repeatedly.
As someone from the middle East (with a high chance of having Mongol blood), it does annoy me how much people are enamoured by Genghis khan. The guy was a brutal imperialist.
I was international student and met many at my university. It was mind boggling how almost everyone would celebrate their cultures' conquests & wars and at the same time call Western conquests evil and the worst thing.
It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
I am assuming the people who celebrate the wars of kings in their lands are more than 500 years old while Western colonialism sort of stopped just 50-100 years back.
So the Western atrocities are still fresh in the mind while people forget the 1000 year old atrocities.
E.g. when looking at Robert Mugabe's hostility towards Britain in particular (without wanting to justify his authoritarianism and violence) it is worth considering that he fought for independence, and though Britain as responsible for allowing Rhodesia to happen.
But the list is massive.
Are you forgetting about modern western imperialist adventures such as Iraq and Afghanistan, entering their 16th year? Where millions of civilians were and are still being killed, injured, displaced, tortured and all around stomped on in terms of human rights, led by some of the most powerful western nations in the world. These wars were cheered on by a good chunk of US and UK citizenry for years before they conveniently faded into the background.
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
That's even ignoring the direct relations of these invasions to the more recent conflicts in Libya, Syria, and ISIS, the boogeymen armed and created by the same people who started these wars not long ago.
Western imperialism is alive and well.
And that western nations are supporting freedom fighters in Syria.
It is rare everywhere. Even in the west.
We celebrate george washington and have statues, schools, etc named after racist slavers and genocidal murderers.
> It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
Really? You think most of us think western imperialism was horrible? We may give lip service to it, but we celebrate our heritage. From ancient greece to rome to the british empire to now our american empire, we celebrate our conquests and victories.
The standard trope amongst the british is that the british empire brought civilization and democracy to most of the world. Our justification for the american empire is that we bring "freedom" to the world.
I'm not sure what a "thorough self evaluation" would actually mean. I don't think that's even remotely feasible, given the immense scope of the subject matter. What has happened is that certain elements within western civilization have focused their efforts on criticizing western civilization, some in good faith and some not, and the rest of western civilization has allowed them to do so. That is the part that is rare, just like suicide, and for the same reason.
Western culture is built on the results of the Greek and Roman empires, the Catholic Church, the English (and French/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch) empire, and the American conquest.
No one is the villain of their own story. And these empires - not the Persian, Ottoman, Germanic, native American, Russian, and other empires which opposed them, or the Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolian, and other empires which didn't feature in their storyline - wrote the storybooks.
It's the natural way to judge things - perhaps not the most accurate or honest, but those take a lot of effort to establish.
Care to respond rather than downvote?
now their memories are faded and people are free to lionize without a lot of outcry.
Coming from a small European country what are the things I should be ashamed of?
Just the British and Americans? Or are Spanish/Portuguese empires also something I should be constantly aware of.
Luckily I havent seen any Belgian chocolate on sale here yet, ha. Hopefully the Swiss have stayed isolated long enough to not add in any more European guilt!
https://mobile.nytimes.com/1996/12/14/world/swiss-acknowledg...
Spain and Portugal are no longer powerful nations, in either a military or economic sense (Portugal ranks behind Slovenia in GDP per capita for example).
If Italy were a super power today, they would be endlessly targeted for derision for their past connections to empire/s. It would be proclaimed that their present status was a direct result of abuses from the past and that they should feel guilty about it all.
Britain lost its empire and has persistently reduced in importance the last century, so they're rarely targeted for guilt regarding that (save for a few exceptions). It's a chapter in history books now, like so many former empires.
The Ottoman Empire? Long gone. Turkey isn't a major world power. As such, most of the world simply doesn't care about its terrible past.
People tend to forget all the good.
The same can be said for the Romans. They slaughtered and enslaved the native peoples of the Iberian peninsula, yet they also built roads, aqueducts, introduced new farming techniques and education.
Should present-day italians feel ashamed of what their ancestors did? I don't think so.
According to your extremist logic, the following were all pretty much Hitler as well:
- Mayans
- Egyptians
- Chinese
- Mongols
- Romans
- Macedonians
- Persians
- Russians
- Omayyad Caliphate
- Ottoman Empire/Turkey
- All african tribes who sold their brethren into slavery
- French
- British
- Portuguese
- Spanish
- Dutch
- Germans
Pretty much any civilization that has ever existed has committed atrocities.
What they did was brutal and there's no excusing this, but they also did good. You can deny it all you want but this is a fact.
Yes. They have the luxury of my judgements having absolutely no impact on them. As their good acts do not compensate for the atrocities, we should be ashamed of what they've done, and try not to do the same in the future. Remembering the good without keeping that in mind leads to the same tragedies playing out again.
For the Portuguese, you probably have to look at Africa and Southeast Asia; I don't know much about them.
That said, there are still people pissed about the Mongol conquest. Genghis Khan is still hated in China, and central Asia and especially the middle east.
For instance, in popular culture, such as Jinyong's Legend of the Condor Heroes, Genghis Khan is a secondary character, depicted as a smart leader who was shaped by the treachery of his own sworn brother and by the oppression of the Jurchen Jin dynasty. The reader is lead to empathize with Genghis Khan, through the eyes of Guojing, the patriotic Sung protagonist, despite the resentment that exists between him and Genghis Khan, the Mongolian leader who has decided to turn on their Sung dynasty allies.
I know Jinyong's work is fiction with a historical background, but I believe his work is a good indication of Chinese sentiments towards historical events and figures.
Chinese suffered as much as other conquered lands, to say to least. The Yuan dynasty lasted less than a century, one of the shortest period in the history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Mixed
Even in the fiction `Jingyong`'s book, I wouldn't say the author had a bias favor Khan, I guess smart readers could read it from the book. The Khan would massacre every one if the be-seiged refuse to surrender, and they usually would drive herds of surrendered to the gate. Not to mention in the book the Kan is Kublai instead, and he is noway the secondary character.
That's in the sequel, The Return of the Condor Heroes, which depicts events after the death of Genghis Khan.
And since you mention Kublai, Genghis Khan only started the conquest of China. He only managed to conquer West Xia before his death. The rest of the conquest of China was done by his descendants, and so I believe most of the atrocities towards the Chinese occurred then.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27mism/how_i...
The mongols didn't exterminate the people they conquered and settle the land with mongols.
> Why is one OK and the other not?
For the same reason why nazi germany was exceptionally evil.
The mongols weren't good. They were empire builders. But they didn't set out to exterminate people.
The difference between western imperialism and mongol imperialism is that russians, chinese, koreans, turks, central asians, arabs, persians, siberians, etc still exist.
Now compare that to what happened to the native americas, inuits, aborigines, etc.
Well... they sort of did. It's just that their selection criteria amounted to "those who oppose us" rather than "those of ancestries we consider bad".
On the macro-scale, there's little difference.
Extermination wasn't their goal, but IIRC they had a policy of exterminating any who resisted them, as a lesson to others. That wasn't standard policy for all empire builders.
Columbus Day is still very much a thing and Queen Elizabeth is still very much of a celebrated Queen of England and a source of pride. Many more examples abound.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...
This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study.
The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context.
As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.
The guy was responsible for the eradication of many civilizations, and a ridiculous amount of plundering, death, and destruction. How can you act "out of respect" to that?
His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
>Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies.
Merv has surrendered, but the war wasn't over. It wasn't just mindless killing, it was for a military objective.
>Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately.
You don't target enemy military assets with fire bombings.
>It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
The motivation for it wasn't to kill civilians, it was always for military reasons.
Truman dropped nuclear bombs on both cities, and the vast majority of their citizens survived the bombings.
"To each [Mongol soldier] was allotted the execution of
three or four hundred Persians. So many had been killed by
nightfall that the mountains became hillocks, and the
plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty."
Some historians believe that over one million people died in
the aftermath of the city's capture, including hundreds of
thousands of refugees from elsewhere, making it one of the
most bloody captures of a city in world history.
Excavations revealed drastic rebuilding of the city's
fortifications in the aftermath, but the prosperity of the
city had passed.
If you look at the basic mechanics of well-documented atrocities at that scale--Rwandan Genocide, Holocaust, Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, Great Chinese Famine, etc--you'll see some combination of long time periods, very modern technology, and a sophisticated socio-political apparatus leveraged for population control. Without some mix of these things, you have no hope of killing enough people before they literally run for the hills and escape your reach.
It was "reported" by the mongols to scare other cities to surrender without a fight. It was part of what we call war propaganda.
And of course also by the enemies of the mongols to demonize the mongols and make the local population fight harder.
But most of it is pure myth. Common sense tells you that.
I disagree. If that was the case, then no man would be praiseworthy.
> His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia:
No he didn't and no it wasn't anything near the most important city in western asia. Go read about the supposed destruction of the cities and see how absurd it is.
Certainly the status of Merv declined as the mongols diverted trade routes to suit them but that's empire.
Also, west asia has lots of great and important cities. I wouldn't go around complaining Mery was the most important cities in west asia when cities like jerusalem, baghdad and a bunch more exist in west asia.
As for the rest of that list, I don't recall any of them having been responsible for massacring and plundering almost an entire continent. And non of them (except Washington in the US) are held at high esteem at all.