Ghengis Khan

He was cool.

I was badass

"I was badass"?

What was I? Ghengis in a past life?

LMAO!

Done any looting and pillaging lately? :wink:

I've been laughing about that typo since I made it.

What do I think? In what way??

Amazing warrior. A string of successes unrivaled throughout the rest of history. Largest territorial conquest of all time, including the subjugation of the most varied number of established cultures. Genghis Khan was a god of war (even though many of his victories can be attributed to Subotai and Jebe).

Hmmmm - Genghis Khan - rorschach.....

Vicious killer....

The chief thug among a pack of vicious thugs. Genghis Kan, created nothing, left no lasting legacy other than destruction, and he destroyed much.

He, like Charlemagne, failed to rise above his tribal traditions. He did not conquer nations, he conquered tribes. Perversely, this aided the establishment of the Yuan dynasty, as the Mongol would simply leave the local village elder style of management in place, while their on-going conquest of the empire removed the Mandarinate from interference in village and district affairs, in some cases for two generations. A lot of good work at the lowest level economically got done, and arguably as well as under Mandarin supervision--certainly at a fraction of the cost in wastage and corruption which always characterized Mandarinate management in the waning, enfeebled days of any dynasty.

Spreading outward into central Asia, the Mongols largely picked up adherents as opposed to spending an increasing toll of lives to progress, which happened in Russia, in Persia, in the Middle East. I am sceptical of the Mameluke claim to have stopped them. Not merely because the death of the Kahn lead the best military commanders to abandon the front lines to rush home for la curée, the spoils of the tribal struggle for power. It is further not certain that the Mamelukes could have maintained the struggle. I consider it a given that Russia could be bowed, and even Kiev taken, but not Moscow, and that nation never broken, even by the Mongols and the Golden Horde. The Tatars established themselves in the Crimea, and exacted a tribute from the Russians, or raided for tens of thousands of slaves if left unpaid, until the days of Sophia Alexeevna--but neither could they conquer.

Additionally, the Mongols did not penetrate to Germany and France, the populous heartland of Europe in the 13th century. They did not penetrate to the Hinud Kush, although bound in that direction. How they would have fared in what we would consider Afghanistan is only a matter of speculation, but experience before and after their era suggests they'd have lost much more than they could have claimed to have gained. They only maintained their hold as far as the Oxus, and only for a few generations.

It can be stated with a reasonable basis for support that they ended the European occupation of the Middle East. It is certain they spelled the death of the Ayyubid Dynasty, and the consequent assertion of independence of the Mamelukes, based upon the authority of what now seems a dubious claim to have been the only army to stop the Mongol, as well as an appeal to ancient Fatamid legitimacy (this from descendants of tribesmen who a few generations earlier had been pale-skinned denizens of the Caucasus--well, whatever works).

The biggest single effect, to my mind, of the irruption of the Mongols and Tatars into the center of Eurasia was the collapse of the Kievan Principate, the fatal wounding of the remant of the Roman Empire, and the death of the Ayyubid Dynasty. The consequence of that was new authority with different appeals to legitimacy in the form of the Muscovite Archdukes, the Osmalin Turks, the Mamelukes. The Mongols did not provide foundation, they were simply catalyst.

Unlike Chingiss, however, Charlemagne rose far enough above tribal custom to have established education, rudimentary communications--lost since the collapse of the Romans in the west--and the renewal of codified law. The Great Kahn was just out conquering for the sake of conquest--and like Alexander III of Macedon, his legacy is only that of a stirrer of the pot.

From what I know Genghis Khan did nothing but unite the tribes. Tamerlane, Kublai(sp?), and Ogedai(sp?) did most of the actually slaying. Nevertheless, Genghis, in my mind, still has one of the most intimidating reputations in history.

Setanta, From what I know, Kublai(sp?) was very aware of the need of education, and religion. He permitted open practice of one's religion and set up schools. But I could be very mistaken, feel free to correct me if I am.

hey this might be like watching the history channel in text! I've watched that show and it's good with all the graphics and things.

Genghis Khan


another link

This site says Chingis Khan , I've always seen Jingis. Anyone have any insight?

BTW, I love this picture of Genghis looking very Asian

Depends where you are from and a little more

Thanks for all the cool links Husker. They actually recognize him as a brilliant tactician and politician, rather than a bloodthirsty barbarian.

I would point out to begin with CoL, that the topic was Chingiss (however one wishes to spell a name which was not derived from a language using roman characters--i believe his given name was Temujin). As for what Kubelai (no, i don't know the allegedly "correct" spelling either) may or may not have done, it is important to recall that he basically stepped into the role of "Son of Heaven." One can allege what they wish, but it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that any educational practices of the Yuan dynasty were the product of Mandarin policy. As for religious tolerance--that seems important to Europeans and western Asiatics, accustomed as they are to slaughtering one another for such causes. Religion never had that significance in China and the surrounding regions. As with the Roman empire, the principle religious observance expected of the population was the prompt payment of taxes--after which, you're on your own, have fun. I'm always leary of statements about what this or that ruler accomplished. It's always useful to look at where they started, where the area they ruled was at the end of their reign, and who else were involved. Finally, of course, our records are only as good as the extent to which literacy flourished in any given age. That the Chinese were literate was not to be doubted. That few Chinese, relative to the entire population were literate is also not to be doubted. The records we have are going to have two origins--the vanity of the Mandarins, and the institutional sycophancy of any bureaucracy at the beginning of a vigorous dynasty.