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 …show more content…
Genghis Khan, as it is well-acknowledged, is renowned for governing the extensively immense Mongol Empire. Despite the common argument that he indiscriminately (done at random or without careful judgement―by definition) slaughtered millions of people, Genghis Khan aspired to conquer new territories and, in accordance to their religion, animism, “the sky god made it their goal to unite the land under one sword.” How else would he have done the preceding? Just as the Mongol Government Official stated, “war is inevitable,” especially when capitulation is refused. Moreover, Genghis Khan noted that peace usually follows surrender. Though Prince Kiev attempted to confute the aforementioned, he was mistaken when he said that “war sparked between the two peoples” as a result of an attempt at peace. In response, Genghis Khan’s negation included that war arose as a consequence of their mistrust of him and the denial of a viable peace
...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.
Many people ask “How Barbaric were the Barbarians”. The truth be told, the mongols were more barbaric than they were peaceful. They were able to conquer more than 4,800,000 miles of land using brutal and strategic military tactics, destroy and conquer cities, along with using extremely harsh punishments for their prisoners. Because of this, the mongols were able to stay in power for about 300 years. Many people believe that they mongols were more peaceful than they were barbaric because of how economically stable they were. However the mongols killed thousands and left millions terrified across Asia.
The Pax Mongolica, also known as the Mongol Peace and Pax Tatarica, was brought up at the end of the time of Mongols’ conquests. Western Scholars designated the fourteenth century as the Pax Mongolica. The Pax Mongolica contributed to the development of a new global culture because the Mongol Khans pursued peaceful trade and diplomacy (220). The bubonic plague epidemic of the 1300s led to the destruction of the Mongol Empire because of the deaths it caused; also, the plague had demoralized the living and deprived the Mongol Golden Family of its primary source of support by cutting off trade and tribute (247).
I am going to critically review a newspaper article on the death of Hamzah Khan from Bradford. I will discuss the main findings the research methodology and the way in which it may or may not be useful in the contribution to our understanding of child welfare. I will also include information on child abuse and on the different agencies. The newspaper article is called Hamzah Khan: the harrowing story of an 'invisible' child. (Pidd, 2013)
The Mongols were nomadic people who didn’t know much about mining, and didn’t farm. They mostly lived off of meat and milk. They used hides from horses and wools from sheeps for their clothes and materials. The Mongols first conquered land, when Temuchin was given the title Genghis Khan. The Mongols were barbaric, they conquered a lot of land, and they were smart.
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.
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.
In the 13th century BC, the Mongols rose to power and conquered an empire whose size still has yet to matched. The Mongols conquered lands such as China, leaving such a lasting influence on them that their legacy still lives on. However, despite the Mongols success, their actions have left a constantly ongoing debate on whether they were barbarians, seen and portrayed by different societies of their time as people with no morale or modern civilities, or civilized people who were just feared by other societies. Although the Mongols are generally now seen as Barbarians because of their violent and barbaric war tactics they used to instill fear in people, they are actually civilized because they had a strategically organized army, and because they were accepting of the customs of other peoples. These two elements would eventually lead them to their success.
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.
The Mongols were also known for their surprise attack which spread to other armies, making it a keen warfare used all around the world. This battle tactic consisted of a group of men who are fighting out on the battlefield and they begin to retreat only to draw the enemy into a trap. The enemy runs into a rain of arrows as the rest of the men are hiding off to the side with loaded weapons, and fierce ground fighters ready for combat. This is one key that the Mongols had to help them conquer Asia. Lastly, the Mongols had a positive impact on the world because they united most of Asia.
First of all, Genghis Khan lived a very sad life full of death and betrayal. When he was believed to be around nine years-old, and still called by his birth name Temujin, his father arranged a marriage for him. His father took Temujin to live with the tribe, Onggirat, where his future wife lived. When his father was on the way back to his own tribe, he encountered the Tatars. The Tatars recognized him as a threat and offered poisoned food to him. Upon eating it, Yisugei was poisoned and died. When Temujin heard of the news, he went back to his tribe to take the position his father held. The tribe did not like the idea of suc...
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.