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.
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.
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.
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.
By Conn Iggulden
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.
> 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.
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