There is a difference between massacres and extermination campaigns. The mongols sacking baghdad isn't the same as the Nazis exterminating jews or the british

There is a difference between massacres and extermination campaigns. The mongols sacking baghdad isn't the same as the Nazis exterminating jews or the british exterminating aborigines or native americans. The mongols didn't have a racist/religious ideology which would have led them to go on an extermination campaign. They didn't sack baghdad and go around killing every arab they could find. They didn't sack baghdad because they hated arabs for heir race. They sacked baghdad because their leader executed mongol emissaries. That is different from the race-based extermination campaign where natives and aborigines were outright exterminated because of who they were. That's what separates the mongols from the british empire or nazi germany who specifically set out to exterminate a race. Were the mongols brutal in their subjugation of certain peoples. Of course. But that's how you build empire. As soon as the nation submitted, they pretty much left and collected tribute. They didn't stay behind to wipe out the people. The nazis exterminated ALL jews ( those who fought against them and those who submitted ). > whereas an empire that massacres urban natives = inclusive and accepting. My point was that the mongols went to war against states/nations/empires ( aka that's why they conquered cities ). The mongols didn't wage racial/religious wars of extermination. I'm not saying their massacres of the urban populace is good. It is horrific. But that's what all empires did. What separates british empire and nazi empire from the mongol empire is that the mongols didn't wage extermination wars. They didn't wipe out the russians, arabs, persians, chinese, koreans or anyone else for that matter. There are chinese people in china, arabs in the middle east, persians in iran, russians in russia, etc. Something you can't say about the aborigines in australia or the natives.