Prosecution and Defense Essay
The accusations made against Genghis Khan are as followed: Genghis Khan and his descendants have committed cruel acts of terror in their conquest and have therefore led to the death of millions. In addition to that, through their conquest, the Khans destroyed culture, artwork, and other marks of civilization in numerous villages that they conquered. The Khan’s did not create a lasting empire, and their ravaging warfare led to the Black Death spread to the rest of the world. Based on these accusations I interviewed witnesses and juries from both the prosecution and defense standpoints.
I was able to get an exclusive look into the journal of the Caliph of Baghdad who was in charge of the Abbasid Empire when Mongols invaded and killed over eight thousand people in their village which also ended in the Caliph’s death. The Mongol invasion also caused the dynasty to finish due to massive killings. Another witness I interviewed, who was also against Genghis Khan, was Pope Innocent VI who became upset when the Mongols came to his village and began killing innocent Christians. In addition to that, here are a few words from the Prince of Moscow, “I came back to Russia after all of the Mongols raided Russia. Our army was destroyed, and I made the executive
…show more content…
The first juror I questioned was a Mongolian peasant who supported Genghis and showed her bias and support towards Genghis. On the other hand, the other two jurors I was able to interview were both Chinese Ministers who shared the same point of view about the trial. Their opinion was that they wanted to keep the technology that the Mongols brought when they raided China although, they wanted throw Genghis out of rule. “He expanded the economy of China although when he did this we also lost our social power and we were now at the bottom of the social
...trospectively. The menacing creature that is Genghis Kahn went overboard to gain as much power as he did. His strategies didn’t allow failure. Unfortunately, his success was from a sociopathic standpoint. Every win by Khan, was a loss for all others. (doc D and doc F) The law codes composed by Kahn were ridiculously unjust and ignited insolence in all men. (doc K and doc N) The yam system was the only completely harmless innovation/method created by Kahn. (doc L) Meanwhile, millions of people were still systematically murdered by Genghis and his stupendous army. (doc E and doc I) All but monotheistic religions were practically snubbed. (doc H, doc G, and doc M). The Mongols will always remain the “barbarians,” for if a society were to emerge that, by some supernatural force, exceeds the brazenness of the Mongol Empire, it would be the end of the world as we know it.
When attacking cities, the mongols often had their prisoners go first, creating a bigger target for them. Also, prisoners were often put to work where they received bone breaking work and brutal beatings. In many cases, the mongols would often bury their prisoners alive head first, or shoot and kill them with a bow and arrow from extremely close range. Sometimes, they would use these punishment as warnings for rivalry tribes, showing them the this is what we do. In the end, they mongols were extremely barbaric with the punishments their prisoners received.
Rossabi, Morris. "Life in China Under Mongol Rule: Religion." The Mongols in World History | Asia
The Mongols were barbaric because of their cruelty. In document 4 it states, “They then drove all the survivors, men and women, out onto the plain; and… it was commanded that the town should be laid waste in such a manner that the site could be ploughed upon; and that … not even cats and dogs should be left alone” (Document C). This document shows they would kill everything that
When the word “Mongol” is said I automatically think negative thoughts about uncultured, barbaric people who are horribly cruel and violent. That is only because I have only heard the word used to describe such a person. I have never really registered any initial information I have been taught about the subject pass the point of needing and having to know it. I felt quite incompetent on the subject and once I was given an assignment on the book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern Age, I was very perplexed for two reasons. One I have to read an outside book for a class that already requires a substantial amount of time reading the text, and secondly I have to write a research paper in History. I got over it and read the book, which surprisingly enough interested me a great deal and allow me to see the Moguls for more than just a barbaric group of Neanderthals, but rather a group of purpose driven warriors with a common goal of unity and progression. Jack Weatherford’s work has given me insight on and swayed my opinion of the Mongols.
The military exploits of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan as well as other leaders and the ruthless brutality that characterized the Mongol conquests have survived in legend. The impact of the invasions can be traced through history from the different policies set forth to the contributions the Mongols gave the world. The idea of the ruthless barbarian’s intent upon world domination will always be a way to signify the Mongols. Living steadfast upon the barren steppe they rode out of Mongolia to pursue a better life for their people.
According to one of the prosecuting attorneys, Genghis Khan killed an approximate “40 million people, about 10% of the world 's population at the time” during his reign over the Mongol Empire. As staggering as those numbers appear, there is substantial justification that is submitted by Genghis Khan himself, as well as the many other witnesses that defend and corroborate his account. Additionally, the amount of evidence presented by the defense is unparalleled to that of the prosecuting attorneys. The most convincing, compelling, and informative testimonies were delivered by Genghis Khan, the Mongol Government Official, the Merchant, and the Prince of Moscow. In contrast, there were a few notable testimonies from the witnesses that opposed Genghis Khan; those of Pope Innocent IV and Caliph of Baghdad. The others merely introduced minor arguments, repeated information, or unsubstantiated, inaccurate information that
Between the early 1200's and the mid 1300's the Mongol Empire, led by Genghis Khan, took control of around 9,300,000 square miles of Eurasia. Genghis Khan first started conquering neighboring clans before setting his sight on the rest of the world. When they would conquer a city, the Mongols would give the city a chance to surrender and if they declined and the Mongols succeeded in conquering them, then all of the citizens would be slaughtered. Under Genghis Khan, the Mongol Empire grew to encompass Central Asia, parts of the Middle East, and east to the borders of the Korean Peninsula. In 1227, Genghis Khan died, which led to the empire being divided into four khanates that would be ruled by his sons and grandsons. Genghis Khan's descendants
... were positive, one may argue that these individuals only saw the tolerant and fair-minded side of the Mongols, and not the relentless warrior part of the society who was known for its “dirty” tactics of war, which went as far as launching diseased-ridden corpses over the walls of castles during sieges. Alternatively, one may argue that the scholars who provided negative documentation of the Mongols only saw the destructive side, not the open-minded side of the society who were known for their cultural acceptance. Although these accounts allowed for an adequate idea of the nature of the Mongols, a record from a peasant who was not a member of the upper class in their society, as all reports presented were from historians, scholars, and political leaders. This would allow for a different perspective on the issue and would produce a better understanding of the topic.
Although the Mongols could be seen as barbarians because of the way they used war tactics to both instill fear in people and attain the land that made up their large empire, their acceptance of other customs caused conquered people to have more loyalty for them and their organized army also helped them to quickly gain control of large amounts of land. These are the reasons why the Mongols were successful and civilized. Allyson Persaud
The Mongols believed a conquered city should be able to be plowed upon; and that not even cats and dogs should be left alive (DOC E). Once the Mongols conquered new land, with the exception of those they wished to have as slaves or artisans who could contribute to society, they murdered with an axe (DOC D). Their killing was so severe, sometimes, the Mongols ended up killing whole cities, most histories estimate the number they killed to be in the millions (Green). By being this ruthless, the societies around the Mongols would hear of the Mongols treatment of prisons and often surrendered the second the Mongols arrived, just to escape slaughter (Green). Being ruthless also meant the Mongol army had nothing stopping them from doing exactly what they wanted because they didn’t care at all about sacrificing enemy casualties and huge groups of people dying.
grew and lasted for about 108 years until they failed by trying to conquer India and were weak the Ming Dynasty overthrew the rulers. The Mongols were not afraid to kill. If one person refuses to do something for them their whole clan will pay, they would leave no survivors. That's what helped make them so successful, many had heard about their gruesome approach and surrendered and accepted submissions. The Mongolians of the Asian Steppe had a positive impact on the world during their rule of the Asian continent from 1206 to 1368 by influencing trade, warfare and uniting China.
It was the world’s largest contiguous empire in history. By the beginning of the 1300s, the empire had 110 million people—at the time, more than a quarter of the world's population. The Mongol Empire was not so renowned at that time, but that does not imply it was not successful. The empire fought brutal battles, as Genghis Khan portrayed when mentioning to his personal historian, “Man’s greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, [and] ride his [horse].” However, because the Mongols also “were quite tolerant in peace,” once the land was won, the lives of its people remained unaltered and generally the same as before.
This story can be summarized by dividing the story into three major sections that represent a genealogy of the Genghis Khan ancestors, the lifestyle of Genghis Khan and the story of Genghis son and Ogodei his successor. This piece of early time’s literature was translated and edited by Jack Weatherford and it was not released until 16th February, 2010. The piece of work restores early history’s most prominent figures to the positions they rightfully deserves. It clears the picture of the nomadic lifestyle of the Mongols and it is rich with information regarding the society of the Mongols in the 12th and the 13th centuries” (Kahn, 2005).
Weatherford, J. McIver. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Crown, 2004. Print.