11 ms·

The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real. > It's estimated that 15

The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real. > It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia. Estimated based on what? Myth? > Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens. And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into tribute states. The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute. What do you think yuan china, duchy of muscow, mughal persia and a host of other khanates were? The mongol army generally consisted of a few thousand to 30K and their campaigns were largely targeted at cities and capitals rather than populations. And keep in mind that during this time, most of the human population was rural rather than urban. The idea that the mongols killed that many people is absurd. Not only did they generally target cities/capitals, once the ruler submitted or was deposed, the mongols generally went home and left a small contingent. You shouldn't take anything you read in WaPo at face value. But even more, you shouldn't anything you read about the mongol empire at face value either. There is so much nonsense and myth that is written about the mongol empire.

formula1 9y ago
I remember reading/hearing somewhere that Ghengis Kahn used to catipult dead bodies into cities which would then spread desiese. In addition, it's my understanding he killed most of the men then slept with as many women as he wanted. One could say a crater from a nuclear bomb was quite peaceful.
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  the catapulting of some diseased bodies into besieged cities/fortresses was a common medieval tactic all around the world. it doesn't take a genius to figure this out during sieges.
abecedarius 9y ago
Another benefit: they were even CO2-negative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Red_Tarsius 9y ago
> Estimated based on what? Myth? That's the number of casualties Weatherford (whose work is described in the article) argues against in his book. I compared such estimates with the Roman body count described by Matthew White. > The Mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It's easy to be called peaceful when you slaughtered all opposition beforehand.
vacri 9y ago
> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense. If anything is a myth about the Mongols, it's this "noble/misunderstood savages" view of them. Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable. They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. Hardly 'inclusive' and 'peaceful'. > They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute How is this different to most other empires? The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, as long as they bent the knee and paid tribute. It's not like the British put India to the sword in order to force-convert it to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire accepted many different religions, as long as you paid your tribute. And just like the Mongols, both of these empires allowed (or forced) people of conquered nations to fight for them.
- nonamechicken 9y ago
  Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I..., there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting. And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-..., In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
  - 9y ago
dang 9y ago
Somehow this turned into the kind of flamewar that we're trying to avoid on HN. Would you please stop engaging in these kinds of arguments here? Their thoughtfulness/rantiness ratio is much too low. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989642 and marked it off-topic.

formula1 9y ago

I remember reading/hearing somewhere that Ghengis Kahn used to catipult dead bodies into cities which would then spread desiese. In addition, it's my understanding he killed most of the men then slept with as many women as he wanted. One could say a crater from a nuclear bomb was quite peaceful.

saiya-jin 9y ago
the catapulting of some diseased bodies into besieged cities/fortresses was a common medieval tactic all around the world. it doesn't take a genius to figure this out during sieges.

abecedarius 9y ago

Another benefit: they were even CO2-negative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Red_Tarsius 9y ago

> Estimated based on what? Myth? That's the number of casualties Weatherford (whose work is described in the article) argues against in his book. I compared such estimates with the Roman body count described by Matthew White. > The Mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It's easy to be called peaceful when you slaughtered all opposition beforehand.

vacri 9y ago

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense. If anything is a myth about the Mongols, it's this "noble/misunderstood savages" view of them. Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable. They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. Hardly 'inclusive' and 'peaceful'. > They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute How is this different to most other empires? The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, as long as they bent the knee and paid tribute. It's not like the British put India to the sword in order to force-convert it to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire accepted many different religions, as long as you paid your tribute. And just like the Mongols, both of these empires allowed (or forced) people of conquered nations to fight for them.

nonamechicken 9y ago
Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I..., there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting. And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-..., In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
- 9y ago

dang 9y ago

Somehow this turned into the kind of flamewar that we're trying to avoid on HN. Would you please stop engaging in these kinds of arguments here? Their thoughtfulness/rantiness ratio is much too low. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989642 and marked it off-topic.