Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Five positive and negative effects of the Mongols
Describe the life and accomplishments of Genghis Khan
Career and achievements of Genghi Khan
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Five positive and negative effects of the Mongols
The warrior who united the Mongol tribes and created an empire that was the largest the world has known, has long fought against history experts.
Though he failed/broke into the Great Wall of China, took/taken (prisoners) by force Peking, destroyed Afghanistan, Persia and Russia, and between 1237 and 1242 (suddenly entered a place in an unwanted way) Europe itself, little is left in the way of modern records.
History is this way likely to insult or (think of something as perfect in your mind), depending upon the history expert. He is a monster, given to grave cruelties, or he is "one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world."
The above quote is from the author of this book and his partialities are seen/obvious. Genghis Khan (a romanization the author prefers over the more intelligent Ghinggis Khaan) was the ideal general whose genius lay in his ability to organize. At the same time, we are told, he never saw himself as
…show more content…
If they refused, cruel mass executions followed. These cannon-food prisoners sent, higher-ranking takes (prisoners) by force could be eliminated. Thanks to their rank, however, no royal blood was to be spilled. The unfortunates were strangled by bow strings or choked/(cut off the air) under piles of carpets. When the Russian princes of stole (and left behind almost nothing) Kiev were taken, they were put under a floor of loose planks upon on which the Mongols then, with singing and dancing, celebrated their victory.
Genghis Khan, whom Muslim writers later always called/labeled as "the evil," was, says/argues de Hartog, no monster -- only a man of his times. Towns could be destroyed and the residents murdered because "the Mongols had no idea of the social function of a town. All they innocently knew "was to steal (and leave behind almost nothing)/stolen things and destroy it and killing of many people its
...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.
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.
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
Though the Mongols were brutal in their campaign to conquer, the conquests of Timur-i Lang were extremely harsh, much more so than that of the Mongols. He is heralded as one of the toughest rulers of the time, and he expanded the empire through harsh measures. Rather than the Mongols, who post-conquest were somewhat peaceful, Timur-i Lang was harmful to those he conquered in Asia. He slaughtered villages and burned them down. Most likely because of his rule and the vastness of the area he ruled, the Mongol empire was not united and failed to garner any big trading network that it previously had. Overall, Timur-i Lang was much more brutal than the rule of any other Mongol Khan, especially during the conquests and after the conquests. His zeal to get more land prevented any conquered peoples to live peacefully under his leadership.
...ws can be interpreted in a couple different ways. First of all, the most common way one can interpret these views is to view them as a product of Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory. During this time period, it was well-known that one must fight to live. Especially before Genghis Khan introduced the act of mercy to the Mongols, society was particularly violent, uneasy, and backstabbing. This means that people would rarely allow others to dominate and would, instead, create an opposition. Finally, these views can also be interpreted by believing that Genghis Khan actually fought to impress his parents. A few recovered documents suggest that he built his army due to his love towards his family and out of familial pride. However, other evidence, such as his hatred towards particular family members, proves this interpretation to be somewhat false.
In comparison to many battles between multiple civilizations in history, each side of the warfare or argument will have their foes. To tie this theory into the documents, the Mongols were recorded to have many foes. The enemies that they had were the populations that disagreed with them or abandoned [escaped] them. Throughout the documents and further reading of historical context, the Mongols were defined as brutal attackers that did not settle their disputes in a what could be considered “proper” manner. Although, my previous statement may be slightly accurate, the Mongols are also credited for having the largest empire known to man, successful power and military, and advancements in trade and conquest. The Mongol empire accomplished the conquest of a large territory in a short amount of time because they were productive in the creation of strategic propositions, adequate in execution, and brave in all aspects of warfare.
Genghis Khan's conquest of Asia caused huge changes to the entire area. Many cities were permanently destroyed from the Mongol's assault, such as the caravan cities of Merv and Balkh (Gordon 140). Centuries couldn't repair the damage done to some cities, and the Mongol's managed to destroy religion as well. The Buddhist culture in present-day Afghanistan was wiped out by the Mongols, who murdered everyone in the area (Gordon 140). The taxes the Mongols enacted and the loot the Mongols stole made the Mongol capitals extremely luxurious, with many expensive goods to sell (Gordon 141). Genghis Khan's way of fighting and leadership was passed down to his many descendants, who continued his legacy for decades.
The Mongols were a group of nomadic people who were known for not only their ferocity in battle but also their tolerance of other cultures. Over the course of their many empires, the Mongols conquered lands from as far as the Korean peninsula to the Islamic civilizations of the Middle East. The movement of the Mongol people into these areas was met with mixed opinions, as members of some societies respected the braveness of the Mongols while others saw them as destructive. According to Ala-ad-Din Ata-Malik Juvaini, 15th century Korean scholars, and Rashid al-Din, the Mongols were a group of tolerant people who attempted to eradicate injustice and corruptness (1,3,4). However, members of other societies viewed the Mongols as coldhearted and merciless because of the damage they dealt in the conquest of Russian cities and the taxes they forced upon their conquered societies (1,2). Nonetheless, some scholars and historians recognized the Mongols power and braveness, but were indifferent with their views of the Mongol civilization.
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.
“Knowledge is power. Power to do evil...or power to do good. Power itself is not evil. So knowledge itself is not evil.” - Veronica Roth, Allegiant
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight edited and translated by James Winny is a poem about a knight, Sir Gawain, from King Arthur’s court. In the very beginning Sir Gawain volunteers to take King Arthur’s place upon the Green Knights arrival when he declares that one knight must agree to receive a blow by his axe after having the chance to give a blow to him. Sir Gawain ends up chopping off the Green Knights head and is then declared to meet the Green Knight in one year to accept a blow from the Green Knight and his axe. When the year comes Sir Gawain sets off to find the Green Knight at the green chapel, which where he will receive the blow. On Sir Gawain’s ventures
The Mongols were a tough, strong, and a fierce Asian group of people. Their reign