Comment by simpletone | Hacker News Reader

Comment by simpletone | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The Romans, Mongols and Aztecs voraciously conquered new lands in search of power and wealth - not of knowledge.

The romans conquered greece and nearly adopted ancient greek knowledge and culture wholesale. The mongols were reknown for invading china, persia, etc and taking their best scholars with them. The mongol empire is responsible for much of the cross-eurasian transfer of knowledge. Along with the preservation of much knowledge and culture as they were multireligious and multiculturalists. It's why people in china still speak chinese and arabs still worship as they do. The mongols didn't wipe out entire cultures like 'european imperialists'.

> In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories."

So wiping out entire continents of people ( their histories, language, culture, knowledge ) was in hopes of obtaining new knowledge. We can't even ascertain the etymology of many of the names of towns, cities, lakes, etc because we killed off entire native language families.

The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests. They killed millions of people. In some cases languages would have been wiped out. You just don't hear much about them these days because dithering over the genocide of peoples we know little about back in 13th-14th century is not in the zeitgeist the way modern colonialism is.

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

It's not surprising, and in fact quite obvious, that any historical event has "good" impacts as well as "bad" ones. But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly. I suppose they could have done more to wipe such things out, and didn't, but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for. Certainly you could make the argument the colonization of the Americas really did not in any way resemble Mongol extermination campaigns.

> The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests.

They didn't. I checked. The fact that you write 'undoubtedly wiped out' without being able to name a single ethnic group, language, religion, culture that got wiped out says something. No?

> They killed millions of people.

They did kill people and were destructive as all empires are. But they weren't genocidal. And most of the 'brutality' is exaggerated for the benefit of oddly enough the conquering mongols and subjugated peoples.

> But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly.

They preserved it because they merged into local populations. Hence mughal persia, mughal india and the various khanates throughout central asia and china. As I said, they were multicultural and multiracial empire. They didn't force their language, customs, religions, etc on the conquered people. They did the oppposite. They adopted the local language, religions, customs. All the way from eastern europe to china to persia and the middle east. Now juxtapose that with what happened to european imperialism?

> but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for.

It isn't a coincidence that marco polo went to china during the rule of the mongols. The mongols deserve credit for much of the modern world. Starting with the italian renaissance ( it isn't a coincidence that the italian renaissance, medicis, etc ) occurred during the mongol empire, to the rise of russian empire, the rise of china, the rise of the ottomans, etc.

It's remarkable how the mongols were so bloodthirsty and genocidal but the peoples they conquered are the most numerous in the world?

Now compare the mongols to the european imperialists who wiped out an entire hemisphere and more.

Here is a list of regions the mongols and their descendents conquered - china, india, persia, middle east, eastern europe, russia, central asia, etc. Tell me which of these people were wiped out. I'll wait.

I have no idea why you are getting downvoted. Maybe people do not want to know the truth?

You are absolutely right in this. Genghis Khan was not only a conqueror, but also an efficient administrator. The various khanates across central asia were a result of mongol invasion. In most of the ancient world, conquest also meant integration with local population. It is not an superior race ruling over inferiors.

On the other hand, what knowledge did european conqueror save? We have all the lost civilization, primarily because europeans did not care to save anything that is not christian.

I'm trying to follow, but having a hard time. The Mongols were NOT brutal and they WERE great administrators? So why was their reign so short?

That appears to be their argument.

Mine would be that the Mongols were brutal and efficient administrators. Killing 50 million people and being a good administrator are orthogonal concepts.

Reading through the Wikipedia article, you can also find references to the Mongols engaging in deliberate cultural destruction, including the massive wastage of books, and targeted religious persecution. I am not sure where the Mongol revisionism comes from but it is surprising to me.

Could you explain some more about how they were good administrators? I always had the impression that they were good conquerors but bad administrators. They'd conquer you then leave you alone as long as you paid your taxes.

If you tell me that the Romans or Persians were good administrators, that makes sense. We know they implemented laws, tax systems, roads, construction projects, etc. Do we have evidence that the Mongols did the same and did it as effectively?

The original point is that europeans were not great at embracing the culture of the people they ruled over, contrary to what Yuval says. He contrasts mongols with european conquests and in my mind, they were the same.

It was a family dynasty, the core lasted 160 odd years until the third generation definitively split into smaller family groupings, one of which lasted as a state until 1680 or so .. giving the "family as rulers" a lifespan of some 480 years.

I never said they were not brutal. I specifically Genghis Khan was a great administrator, nothing about him not being brutal. In my mind, they are orthogonal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com