Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: The Moral and Practical Implications of the Mongol Conquests

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,580

    Default

    Tc,

    Do concepts like slavery and *heavy* discrimination and poverty life not exist to you? Are slaves born to suffer?

    In some areas of the world, especially if we are speaking of ancient history, an attempt to lead an alternative lifestyle that will lead to the success you think it will, often times will lead to death. Yes working hard is something you should be proud of, but you also need to realize the ability to work hard is not something everyone has. Some people would be glad to work 12-16 hours day, but that opportunity is not even available to them.

    Never mind modern life, but in ancient history, do you literally think that the millions/billions of people would rather have starved to death than to work 12 hours a day? What do you think the average peasant did with all their time? Sit around and do nothing, or more likely, attempt to forage for whatever food they could and still unsuccessfully do it?

    You are pretty much telling the billions of people that have died of starvation or hunger that they just didn't work hard enough. Think about it -- is it more likely your perception is wrong, or there were just billions of people sitting around with their arms crossed unwilling to work and choosing to starve to death?

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    65

    Default

    I think the majority of people agree with me that personal efforts cannot always overcome circumstances and situation can explain if not justify immoral acts.
    TC are you playing mind games or are the above really your thoughts.
    If the former I congratulate you on a successful experiment, if the latter a feel sorry for you.

  3. #23
    Senior Member smurf120's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trien Chieu View Post

    I am sorry to say this but 40 hours/week is too little. In this situation, you have to work much more hours. For people who earn minimum wage, they need to work at least 70 hours/week in order to have a decent living. My mom worked more than 70, around 80, hours/week when we first came to Canada.

    If the people from the inner city are willing to live the life like us, they will for sure make it. It's their own fault for being where they are. It's not racism or discrimination as they claimed. Do you watch the reality show from A&E "THE FIRST 48"? The people who are involved in crime are young and strong. If they willing to work, they can do all kinds of work but no, they are to good to work and live like everyone else. It's easier to earn the money by selling drugs or robbing.
    TC - do you realize how many companies do not allow people to work for more than 40 hour weeks? I have pretty high paying job at law firm and there is blanket rule of no overtime for hourly employees. Some companies suspend or fire people for having multiple jobs. Very low minimum wage jobs people often have their hours cut so they don't qualify as full-time so that employers do not have to pay health benefits.

    I live in downtown Chicago, grew up here with first generation immigrant parents. My mother worked 12 hour days 7 days a week and my father worked 16 hour days at a restaurant 6 days a week. My family never even owned a car for the last 30 years. I am not lost on the hard working immigrant family premise having grown up at the poverty line.

    Good for you that you grew up in Canada that has something like universal healthcare or cheap medication - we don't have that here. I have known high school classmates who don't have winter jackets or travel an hour and half to get to school because we were lucky to be accepted into best school in the city proper.

    Not every kid has the strength to walk through a drug/gang addled neighborhood, get their only meals at school, then stay as long as possible after school just to have a warm place to stay because that would be a choice between warmth and trudging home after pitch black darkness at 5 PM or waiting for public bus for over an hour and half in sub zero weather. I was considered one of the lucky ones to not face family squabbles at home.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Giang Ho, Canada
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 426mak View Post
    I think the majority of people agree with me that personal efforts cannot always overcome circumstances and situation can explain if not justify immoral acts.
    TC are you playing mind games or are the above really your thoughts.
    If the former I congratulate you on a successful experiment, if the latter a feel sorry for you.
    Perhaps I was overly generalized about hard work in ancient time. Under extreme circumstances, I guess hard work still not sufficient for survival. For modern times, things are much easier. Regarding Africa, if they really want to rise up like everyone else, they should open up their market up as much as they can. Now is their best chance to succeed and get the best deal from American companies as OBAMA still the President.

    Quote Originally Posted by smurf120 View Post
    TC - do you realize how many companies do not allow people to work for more than 40 hour weeks? I have pretty high paying job at law firm and there is blanket rule of no overtime for hourly employees. Some companies suspend or fire people for having multiple jobs. Very low minimum wage jobs people often have their hours cut so they don't qualify as full-time so that employers do not have to pay health benefits.
    Congratulation that you have a good paying job. Yes, for certain high paying jobs, companies won't allow their employees have a second jobs. For minimum wage jobs, there is no such restriction.

    I live in downtown Chicago, grew up here with first generation immigrant parents. My mother worked 12 hour days 7 days a week and my father worked 16 hour days at a restaurant 6 days a week. My family never even owned a car for the last 30 years. I am not lost on the hard working immigrant family premise having grown up at the poverty line.

    Good for you that you grew up in Canada that has something like universal healthcare or cheap medication - we don't have that here. I have known high school classmates who don't have winter jackets or travel an hour and half to get to school because we were lucky to be accepted into best school in the city proper.

    Not every kid has the strength to walk through a drug/gang addled neighborhood, get their only meals at school, then stay as long as possible after school just to have a warm place to stay because that would be a choice between warmth and trudging home after pitch black darkness at 5 PM or waiting for public bus for over an hour and half in sub zero weather. I was considered one of the lucky ones to not face family squabbles at home.
    Good for your family that their hard work are being rewarded. See, if the one who live in the poor/ghetto neighborhoods has the determination like your family they will make it. Again, it's not easy but not impossible. I don't think Canada is easier than the US. We have universal healthcare but our taxes also higher so it works out to be the same. Our weather is even colder than Chicago.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trien Chieu View Post
    Perhaps I was overly generalized about hard work in ancient time. Under extreme circumstances, I guess hard work still not sufficient for survival. For modern times, things are much easier. Regarding Africa, if they really want to rise up like everyone else, they should open up their market up as much as they can. Now is their best chance to succeed and get the best deal from American companies as OBAMA still the President.
    Even in modern times, hard work may not pay off when the larger native population take a violent dislike to you. Thousands of ethnic Chinese were killed in Indonesia in the 1990s for being Chinese. These pogroms have happened in the past as well. Hard work didn't save them when a larger native population took their knives to them.

    These massacres have usually happened to the Chinese rather than by the Chinese as China has historically been by far the strongest power in the region, and when they weren't, they were under the firm rule of another country. But the Chinese weren't free from xenophobic violence either, when they felt themselves oppressed by foreigners and had vulnerable members in their hands. The Boxer rebellion at the end of the 19th century saw a number of peaceable westerners killed (missionaries, their families, etc.) as the native Chinese reacted against perceived western oppression. Hard work didn't save them either. And you suggested that the Mongolian chappie take his wares to some Chinese town and set up shop. At a time when anti-foreign feeling as a result of the Jin was even stronger than that during the late Qing.

    Read some history books and learn about contemporary conditions. Educate yourself about the past.

  6. #26
    Member Swordsman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pannonian View Post
    Even in modern times, hard work may not pay off when the larger native population take a violent dislike to you. Thousands of ethnic Chinese were killed in Indonesia in the 1990s for being Chinese. These pogroms have happened in the past as well. Hard work didn't save them when a larger native population took their knives to them.

    These massacres have usually happened to the Chinese rather than by the Chinese as China has historically been by far the strongest power in the region, and when they weren't, they were under the firm rule of another country. But the Chinese weren't free from xenophobic violence either, when they felt themselves oppressed by foreigners and had vulnerable members in their hands. The Boxer rebellion at the end of the 19th century saw a number of peaceable westerners killed (missionaries, their families, etc.) as the native Chinese reacted against perceived western oppression. Hard work didn't save them either. And you suggested that the Mongolian chappie take his wares to some Chinese town and set up shop. At a time when anti-foreign feeling as a result of the Jin was even stronger than that during the late Qing.

    Read some history books and learn about contemporary conditions. Educate yourself about the past.
    cos those muslim indonesian are jealous of the riches of the chinese in their country.. after so many years indonesia still have not wake up.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Giang Ho, Canada
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsman83 View Post
    cos those muslim indonesian are jealous of the riches of the chinese in their country.. after so many years indonesia still have not wake up.
    Indonesia was/is a f-up country. How rich are they now after all the killing/robbing/looting? Wealth won't last without education and hard work. Here in Canada, hard work always pay off. No one go after the Chinese/Jews for their wealth.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trien Chieu View Post
    Indonesia was/is a f-up country. How rich are they now after all the killing/robbing/looting? Wealth won't last without education and hard work. Here in Canada, hard work always pay off. No one go after the Chinese/Jews for their wealth.
    Yup. That impoverished 13th century Mongolian chappie, instead of conquering other countries, should have hopped on a plane like your family did and made his way to 20th century Canada where hard work can make all the difference.

  9. #29
    Moderator Ren Wo Xing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Currently DC
    Posts
    6,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pannonian View Post
    Yup. That impoverished 13th century Mongolian chappie, instead of conquering other countries, should have hopped on a plane like your family did and made his way to 20th century Canada where hard work can make all the difference.
    Pannonian, with all due respect, you really are offering up strawmans and engaging in far too much historical relativism here. I don't mean to be rude, but these arguments seem to me to be an attempt to be totally PC and objective about certain events that happened sufficiently long ago that there isn't sufficient emotional 'sting'. I apologize for invoking Godwin's law, but let me put this in another way; if this was a weeks-long forum discussion started by others about "the evils of Nazi Germany", would you spend all this time defending the Third Reich and say, "Hey, they just wanted living space!" and spend all this time explaining why the historical exigencies and the economic depression caused by their defeat in the 1st World War led to the actions of the Third Reich, and why the Reich can't be blamed? I honestly, honestly doubt that.

    Fact: Over the course of the Mongolian invasions, the Chinese census count dropped from 120 million to 60 million. While not all of those can be accounted as 'deaths', without question a good portion can; a commonly seen estimate is 10+ million. By comparison, around 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
    Fact: As a result of the Mongolian invasions, the total population of Iran/Persia dropped from 2.5 million to 250,000 (2.25 million deaths).
    Fact: As a result of the Mongolian invasions, the total population of Hungary dropped from 2 million to 1 million (1 million deaths).
    Fact: As a result of the Mongolian invasions, ~500,000 were killed in European Russia.
    Fact: The entire world's population dropped by 5% as a result of Timur/Tamerlane alone, AFTER the deaths caused by Genghis Khan.

    And all of that is outside of the questions of destruction of land, property, rape, etc. The Mongolian invasions, without question, were an unprecedented disaster for the ancient world. If you cannot describe the murder of 5% of the entire world's population as an unmitigated evil, then there is nothing you can describe as evil.

    I know that TC has a lot of unpopular opinions, many/most of which I disagree with, but ask yourself, do you honestly look at those numbers (totally unprecedented in the history of the world both in the past or in the present) and honestly believe that the Mongolians were 'justified' in doing what they did, and worthy of you spending all this time defending? Or are you just picking apart at TC's (admittedly weak) logic a la "Well the Mongolians couldn't just fly to Canada, so their actions were understandable"?
    Last edited by Ren Wo Xing; 12-30-13 at 04:14 PM.
    Read the latest chapters of Coiling Dragon at Wuxia World!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    What I'm criticising is applying modern norms to historical situations, and judging them by these standards. It's nonsensical to expect a 13th century Mongolian to travel to 20th century Canada. It's equally nonsensical to expect a 13th century Mongolian to make his living according to 20th century westernised standards, which weren't available at his time. As I've pointed out, the expectation of social mobility via hard work has been a recent trend among Chinese, depending on how recent their contact with westernisation was, with the diaspora getting an earlier start, Hong Kong being the natives with the earliest realistic expectation and the mainlanders getting that relatively recently. For a 13th century Mongolian to have that expectation is entirely unrealistic, especially in the scenario that TC describes, setting up shop in a Chinese town somewhere. With the anti-foreign feeling likely to be current, a Mongol doing as TC says would most likely be robbed and killed, with the more initial success he gets making it the more likely he will attract the jealous and xenophobic attention of native Chinese.

    For a 13th century Mongol, the most viable option for social mobility is raiding and war. Up until Temujin unified the steppe tribes, this meant raiding on each other. After unification, this meant war on outsiders. There is nothing right or wrong about this conclusion. It's just how it was. The Mongols weren't unique or barbaric in this either. The Roman state, until its settlement by Augustus, was founded on the principle of perpetual war and spoils. The Spanish maintained an empire for the purpose of looting the Americas. The later European empires began on the basis of then looting the Spanish. China, having made itself by far the most dominant power in the region by conquest and colnisation fairly early on, followed the principle of the most powerful arguing that the status quo was morally superior to change. When the British reached this status, they too made the same argument. But if they feel they can push for more, they will, regardless of the "immorality of war". See modern China feeling that they can push for greater influence than they currently have, and expanding their military to back their claims. See the US currently asserting "universal" diplomatic principles that effect to consolidate their influence and limit China's. Same old game.

    For an example of slaughter on a massive scale, albeit not in the numbers that you've cited (but then the numbers for the 3 Kingdoms period are pretty colossal too), see Julius Caesar's quotes on the population of Gaul. IIRC he quotes a pre-war population of 3 million, of which he killed 1 million and enslaved another million. That's an eminent figure of one of the greatest civilisations in history boasting about killing or enslaving 2/3 of another country's population. The Thirty Years' War devastated the population of the countries the war was fought in. The Napoleonic Wars led to Clausewitz theorising on the outcomes of wars based, not on military genius, but on population numbers. And of course we had the 20th century's wars. There was nothing peculiarly barbaric about the Mongols. Population drops are the natural consequence of war, and the Mongols were particularly good at it and carried it further than most.

    FWIW, population drop in the areas affected by the Mongols probably peaked as a result of the peace rather than the war. With peace came the development of the Mongolian trading network that was the basis of their legendary wealth. And with that came the spread of the Black Death.

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Wo Xing View Post
    Pannonian, with all due respect, you really are offering up strawmans and engaging in far too much historical relativism here. I don't mean to be rude, but these arguments seem to me to be an attempt to be totally PC and objective about certain events that happened sufficiently long ago that there isn't sufficient emotional 'sting'. I apologize for invoking Godwin's law, but let me put this in another way; if this was a weeks-long forum discussion started by others about "the evils of Nazi Germany", would you spend all this time defending the Third Reich and say, "Hey, they just wanted living space!" and spend all this time explaining why the historical exigencies and the economic depression caused by their defeat in the 1st World War led to the actions of the Third Reich, and why the Reich can't be blamed? I honestly, honestly doubt that.

    First of all let me commend you on your superb use of facts and logic to make your point.
    As you can see from my previous comments I am firmly in the Mongolians are not the ultimate evil camp, but found your argument very compelling.
    However I would like to ask, if a Chinese, Roman, Greek or any other military leader could have achieved what the Mongols did would they?
    Did these other empires cause less destruction because of some moral boundaries or just because it was beyond their ability to do so?
    Last edited by Ken Cheng; 12-30-13 at 08:45 PM.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,580

    Default

    I think there's a bit of a disconnect in what is being argued.

    The first point is whether war and plundering is a moral, or at least NOT immoral, thing to do in ancient times. The beginning of the Mongolian conquests I believe are justifiable in that they had no alternatives to better their own peoples' lives except through war. The countries close to them were weak, and it's not like they were humanitarians that were trying to help the Mongolians -- they only cared about themselves, and as such you cannot blame a stronger outside force to take what you won't give them.

    The second thing is what the Mongolians did AFTER they presumably got all they "needed" in conquering the Song empire. They now had rich lands and existing cities to bring their citizens to if they wanted to, yet they continued conquering. This is not unlike many conquerors of yore, and certainly not a strange thing to do at the time. But we do have to acknowledge that any practical purpose of war (to gain land and wealth for your citizens) is trumped by the ego of the reigning Khan to become king of the world.

    I think the conquering of China was justified in the sense that it was the law of the land at the time; the strong take from the weak, and the terribly destitute will seek ways to enrich themselves. As a modern man looking back though, the bloodshed the years after that is clearly just an ego booster that I cannot agree with. The Mongolians did what they should have done to survive in the beginning, but their sheer power and might certainly got to their heads.

    It's silly to think the Mongolians should have just sat around idly and tried to make a living weaving baskets and selling dust, but it should also be acknowledged that they went far beyond what was necessary with regards to war if they had any sort of moral intentions.
    Last edited by tape; 12-30-13 at 07:25 PM.

  13. #33
    Moderator Ren Wo Xing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Currently DC
    Posts
    6,660

    Default

    @pannonian, your argument that the population drop was due to the Black Death is factually incorrect; the Black Death was from 1348-1350. Tamerlane's campaigns began in around 1383, well after the Black Death had come and gone. So the 17 million people (5% of the entire world's population) that he massacred were just that: a product of massacres, not of disease. Similarly, the Mongolian invasions of China were from 1205-1279. The utter massacre of Khwarazm in Samarkand and Urgench (featured in LOCH) were from 1219-1221. The entirety of the Mongolian expansionary wars of conquests were from 1206-1337. So those casualty figures that I cited had nothing to do with the Black Death whatsoever.

    And the Mongolian wars of conquest didn't go "further than most". It was further than all, up until the first World War in the 20th century, and the first World War was as bloody as it was because it was two superpower alliances going at it, and not because one side was steamrolling everyone else and massacring everything in their path. You point out specific examples of large scale killings, such as Rome and Caesar, but although Rome engaged in wars of conquest, it didn't first massacre the Gauls, then massacre the Egyptians, then massacre the Greeks, then massacre the Macedonians, then massacre the Persians, then massacre the Chinese, etc. If they did, I would be criticizing them as well and say the Roman Empire was also an unmitigated evil! But they did not.

    Again, I recognize that you are picking at the weaknesses in TC's arguments, but let me ask you; wouldn't it be equally nonsensical to expect the 20th century Nazi's to follow 21st century standards? And would you make the argument that we can't apply 21st century principles to 17th century Europeans, and therefore that we cannot say that slavery was an evil institution? When does the moral and historical relativism end?

    @426mak, although the Mongol Empire was (up until the British Empire came about) territorially the largest empire in the world, in terms of total percent of the world's population, several other empires rivaled it, including the Roman Empire, various Chinese dynasties, the Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire, and of course the British Empire as well. As with all empires, these were built by war...but despite having conquered more people in a smaller space, not one of them committed atrocity after atrocity, massacre after massacre, on the scale and the pace that the Mongolians did. I think that says something.
    Read the latest chapters of Coiling Dragon at Wuxia World!

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    They did eventually settle down though, and developed the arts of peace. Primary of which was the development of a trading network to allow goods to be carried throughout the empire. The evidence for this can be seen in the much improved reputation of Mongols in lands far away, as they saw the wealth that was being produced by the Mongol empire and the ideas that were being circulated, and they wanted their share of it. And in a roundabout way, the effectiveness of the Mongolians' peaceful administration can also be seen in the drastic population drop across Eurasia, as the Black Death took the opportunity offered by this extensive network to escape its origins in the steppes and find its way into the urbanised centres across the continents. This was the consequence of the Pax Mongolica.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Wo Xing View Post
    @pannonian, your argument that the population drop was due to the Black Death is factually incorrect; the Black Death was from 1348-1350. Tamerlane's campaigns began in around 1383, well after the Black Death had come and gone. So the 17 million people (5% of the entire world's population) that he massacred were just that: a product of massacres, not of disease. Similarly, the Mongolian invasions of China were from 1205-1279. The utter massacre of Khwarazm in Samarkand and Urgench (featured in LOCH) were from 1219-1221. The entirety of the Mongolian expansionary wars of conquests were from 1206-1337. So those casualty figures that I cited had nothing to do with the Black Death whatsoever.

    And the Mongolian wars of conquest didn't go "further than most". It was further than all, up until the first World War in the 20th century, and the first World War was as bloody as it was because it was two superpower alliances going at it, and not because one side was steamrolling everyone else and massacring everything in their path. You point out specific examples of large scale killings, such as Rome and Caesar, but although Rome engaged in wars of conquest, it didn't first massacre the Gauls, then massacre the Egyptians, then massacre the Greeks, then massacre the Macedonians, then massacre the Persians, then massacre the Chinese, etc. If they did, I would be criticizing them as well and say the Roman Empire was also an unmitigated evil! But they did not.

    Again, I recognize that you are picking at the weaknesses in TC's arguments, but let me ask you; wouldn't it be equally nonsensical to expect the 20th century Nazi's to follow 21st century standards? And would you make the argument that we can't apply 21st century principles to 17th century Europeans, and therefore that we cannot say that slavery was an evil institution? When does the moral and historical relativism end?

    @426mak, although the Mongol Empire was (up until the British Empire came about) territorially the largest empire in the world, in terms of total percent of the world's population, several other empires rivaled it, including the Roman Empire, various Chinese dynasties, the Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire, and of course the British Empire as well. As with all empires, these were built by war...but despite having conquered more people in a smaller space, not one of them committed atrocity after atrocity, massacre after massacre, on the scale and the pace that the Mongolians did. I think that says something.
    If you want to pin Tamerlane's campaigns on the Mongols, then I guess we're talking about different things. I see the Mongolian empire as the first instance that was fragmented by the time of the Black Death. The ones that existed after are successor kingdoms or empires, in the same way that various regional powers that used to be in the British Empire are not the British Empire, but are their own entities (eg. South Africa, Nigeria, India, Australia, even the US).

    On my statement that the Mongols "carried it further than most", perhaps I should have said "carried it afield further than most". Their armies ventured further than most, and would therefore have carried the consequences of war with them wherever they fought. As the Germans found to their cost in the Thirty Years War, being the site of a battleground is no fun, even where the fighters don't set out to commit atrocities.

    And since you want to discuss the Nazis and contemporary moral standards, I'll address that point. Among the intellectuals of that era, war was not necessarily an evil. They believed in patriotism, and the primacy of their own country over others. But they did not believe in carrying that through to the systematic harm of others. At the very least, at least among the liberal democracies, there was a distinction between civilian and combatants, governed by the Geneva and other conventions. Combatants may fight, and civilians may be caught up in the fighting. But you don't set out to kill civilians. That's beyond the line, and had been since the late 19th century at the latest (early formulations of these conventions go back to the post-Napoleonic treaties). For an example of how this works, see the abuses of the British Empire during this period. Where there were cases where the local or even the Westminster government would go against this moral line, there were also critics calling for the government to be held to account for this. Why were there critics? Because there was an underlying belief that this kind of thing was not acceptable. So regarding Nazi Germany, their invasion of Poland was just another in the list of European wars, but what they did to the Jews and others they had in their power was beyond the pale even by contemporary standards. Hell, they knew enough about these standards to crow about Katyn when they found out about it.

    If you want examples of how contemporary Europeans saw civilians, see the German killings of Belgians and French in the early stages of WWI, both on suspicion of harbouring snipers and to terrorise others into submission. The Allies formally accused them of war crimes.

  16. #36
    Moderator Ren Wo Xing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Currently DC
    Posts
    6,660

    Default

    Tamerlane was related to Genghis Khan, saw himself as Genghis Khan's successor, and united the Golden Horde, the Chagatai Khanate, and the Ilkhanate under his banner. The relationship and similarities between him and the original horde is far, far closer than the relationship between, say, Britain and India!

    As far as contemporary standards go, you are cherry-picking examples. If you want to point out the Leipzig war crimes trials, then I submit to you the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. By comparison, the Rape of Belgium saw, what, maybe 10,000 deaths? Katyn, maybe around 20,000? A fraction of the civilians killed in any one of those three examples. I submit to you that contemporary Europeans didn't have the view of civilians that you seem to think they did. And remember who writes the history books.

    Anyhow, if you insist on using 'contemporary' standards of that era (which is a meaningless form of relativism; is something wrong only if people of that time believed it wrong?), please point out any other nations in the 1200-1300 range which were conducting large scale massacres on ALL of their neighbours in wars of near-extermination. Please point out any contemporaries which, while waging aggressive war against their neighbors, would as a matter of generally policy exterminate entire cities just for having 'resisted' conquest.

    Alternately, if you want to use the 'contemporary' standards of empires and conquerors, then please point out which empire engaged in such habitual massacres of their subjugated opponents. The Romans didn't. Alexander didn't. The British didn't. When the Mongolians invaded China, they killed 10 million to 30 million people. The invasion of Hungary, in Europe, saw that country lose half of its entire population. When Genghis Khan waged war on the Khwarezmian empire, after winning, the entire populations of the largest cities (2-3+ million) were massacred after they surrendered. Please show me proof of contemporaries that even approached this level of atrocity, even on a 'per conquest' basis.
    Last edited by Ren Wo Xing; 12-31-13 at 01:49 AM.
    Read the latest chapters of Coiling Dragon at Wuxia World!

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Tamerlane's claim to be descended from Genghis was more political and hero worship than fact, similar to how the Romans claimed descent from the frictional Trojans to establish a link with the Greeks.
    If we follow your logic, all European empires, wars and death can be attributed to the Macedonians, as the Romans used them as inspiration and were themselves admired and copied by almost every empire in European history.
    As for breaking promises, the European conquest of North America is a classic example of deceit and duplicity where the Europeans set out to eradicate a way of life and habitually broke treaties.
    Xian Yu's massacre of 300,000 surrendered Qin troops hardly speaks for Chinese trustworthiness.

    I cannot accept the Mongols as the ultimate evil base solely on scale as it would be equivalent to saying serial killer A who was stopped after killing 5 people is less evil the serial killer B who was stopped after killing 10.

    Surely to judge evil we must also look at motive, opportunity and circumstance, in which the Mongols are no different from any other empire.

  18. #38
    Moderator Ren Wo Xing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Currently DC
    Posts
    6,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 426mak View Post
    Tamerlane's claim to be descended from Genghis was more political and hero worship than fact, similar to how the Romans claimed descent from the frictional Trojans to establish a link with the Greeks.
    If we follow your logic, all European empires, wars and death can be attributed to the Macedonians, as the Romans used them as inspiration and were themselves admired and copied by almost every empire in European history.
    As for breaking promises, the European conquest of North America is a classic example of deceit and duplicity where the Europeans set out to eradicate a way of life and habitually broke treaties.
    Xian Yu's massacre of 300,000 surrendered Qin troops hardly speaks for Chinese trustworthiness.

    I cannot accept the Mongols as the ultimate evil base solely on scale as it would be equivalent to saying serial killer A who was stopped after killing 5 people is less evil the serial killer B who was stopped after killing 10.

    Surely to judge evil we must also look at motive, opportunity and circumstance, in which the Mongols are no different from any other empire.
    426mak, you are getting some facts mixed up. First of all, Tamerlane never claimed to be a descendant of Genghis Khan, just his successor and relative, which was one of the reasons he never called himself 'Khan'. Secondly, by Kublai Khan's death in around 1300, the Mongolian empire fractured into the Changatai Khanate, the Ilkhanate, the Golden Horde, and Yuan China. Yuan China collapsed, but of the remaining parts of the Empire, all were unified under Tamerlane in that very same century. Comparing that very close relationship and very short timeframe (same century) to the link from the Macedonians from 334 BC to centuries (or millenia) later is not intellectually honest.

    RE other atrocities in history, like pannonian, you are cherry picking examples (which, for the record, still don't match up to what the Mongols did). There have been massacres throughout history, it's true. But please give another example of another empire which did what the Mongols did to the Khwarezmians alone, ie wiping out multiple entire cities of noncombatants, including women and children, totalling millions of lives. The Roman Empire, as I noted, certainly had the opportunity to do so to all of the lands they conquered, not just Gaul. They did not. Same with the British. Same with Alexander. No one 'stopped' Alexander from massacring the Persians after beating them; he chose not to do so, and in fact honored Sisygambis, the mother-in-law of Darius (his ultimate enemy), as his own mother. No one 'stopped' the British from wiping out the entire population of India; they chose not to do so. Your parallel using serial killers who were stopped holds no water. Not all conquerors are the same. The Mongols were indisputably the worst of an often-bad lot.
    Last edited by Ren Wo Xing; 12-31-13 at 03:13 AM.
    Read the latest chapters of Coiling Dragon at Wuxia World!

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Giang Ho, Canada
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tape View Post
    I think there's a bit of a disconnect in what is being argued.

    The first point is whether war and plundering is a moral, or at least NOT immoral, thing to do in ancient times. The beginning of the Mongolian conquests I believe are justifiable in that they had no alternatives to better their own peoples' lives except through war. The countries close to them were weak, and it's not like they were humanitarians that were trying to help the Mongolians -- they only cared about themselves, and as such you cannot blame a stronger outside force to take what you won't give them.
    If you are poor and want to better yourself, then you must work harder and save up. There is no justification in robbing/looting from others no matter how poor you are. When my family immigrated to Canada, we were pretty poor but we would never ever want to rob/loot from others. No matter how poor, I rather die of starvation than robbing/looting from others.

    The second thing is what the Mongolians did AFTER they presumably got all they "needed" in conquering the Song empire. They now had rich lands and existing cities to bring their citizens to if they wanted to, yet they continued conquering. This is not unlike many conquerors of yore, and certainly not a strange thing to do at the time. But we do have to acknowledge that any practical purpose of war (to gain land and wealth for your citizens) is trumped by the ego of the reigning Khan to become king of the world.
    It's short lived.

    I think the conquering of China was justified in the sense that it was the law of the land at the time; the strong take from the weak, and the terribly destitute will seek ways to enrich themselves. As a modern man looking back though, the bloodshed the years after that is clearly just an ego booster that I cannot agree with. The Mongolians did what they should have done to survive in the beginning, but their sheer power and might certainly got to their heads.
    It was not the law of the land. If you want something, you have to work hard to earn it. Robbing/looting from the weak is not an answer to the problem. Given all the wealth the Mongolians robbed/looted in the past, how rich are they now? They are still dirt poor because wealth being gain by robbing/looting won't last long.

    It's silly to think the Mongolians should have just sat around idly and tried to make a living weaving baskets and selling dust, but it should also be acknowledged that they went far beyond what was necessary with regards to war if they had any sort of moral intentions.
    If they were poor and wanted a better life then they have to work hard to earn the wealth, not by robbing/looting from others. It's better to die of famine than to rob/loot from other people for a living. Other people owe them nothing.

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    65

    Default

    I defer to your superior knowledge of Asian history in the case of Tamerlane.
    But have to disagree with your assessment of Alexander/Romans being morally superior to the Mongols that they 'decided' to stop their activities.

    Alexander was forced to quit his campaign by his own men's mutiny. He was planning on an invasion of Arabia on his death bed and was only stopped by his own death.

    I agree that Alexander's behaviour to the Persian royal family was exemplary, but Genghis was also a very loving husband and devoted son.

    The Romans were stopped in their expansion by the Parthians in the east and geography on the other 3 fronts, desert in the south, deep cold in the north and water in the west.

    Also I don't recall the Mongols killing every single Han Chinese, middle eastern Muslim or European they encountered.

    I ask again how are any empires motives different from the Mongols, all were motivated by greed, lust, hatred or vengeance.

    How are the Mongols worst when they give into these motives.

Similar Threads

  1. The Moral Test
    By Guo Xiang in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-06-10, 02:24 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-15-06, 12:37 PM
  3. Changes in Tse Tsun's moral views in HSDS.
    By Ken Cheng in forum Wuxia Fiction
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-19-04, 05:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •