16 ms·
Why Genghis Khan’s tomb can’t be found
- andy_ppp 9y agoThis wikipedia entry on Mongolian Military Tactics is well worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_or...
- beloch 9y agoStrongest possible recommendation: Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode - "Wrath of the Khans" http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-the-khans-series/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-t... It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.
- randomstudent 9y ago> from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain. I don't think it was luck. It was probably the lack of cars ;)
- duncan_bayne 9y agoThey'd probably tried to go 100% solar by 2050 (BC)
- baldfat 9y agoUm everyone was Solar? They feed their animals solar raised fuel, AKA hay and oats.
- sorokod 9y agoOil is solar in the same sense
- AckSyn 9y agoBut heavily aged, almost like cheese. Flammable cheese.
- baldfat 9y agoThe sun only provided the fuel's origin the chemical alteration of this material is caused by pressure, heat and millions of years. Though fossil fuel is scientifically photosynthesis based the alteration is what makes it a fossil fuel. Hench the name fossil. https://www.geochemsoc.org/files/6214/1261/1770/SP-2_271-284_Sato.pdf https://www.geochemsoc.org/files/6214/1261/1770/SP-2_271-284...
- duncan_bayne 9y agoYou get that I was joking, right? (If for no other reason than the wild anachronism; Khan was born in 1162).
- Kpourdeilami 9y agoJudging by the amount of lands of that Mongols conquered, lack of cars wouldn't have stopped them from conquering Europe. Mongol empire at its peak spanned over 24 million square kilometres of land while To put that into perspective, the Roman Empire at its peak only spanned over 5 million square kilometres of land
- NoCoastCoder 9y agoPretty sure he was making a joke about the use of the term driving.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Sleeep 9y agoYou're trying to be clever but the word "drive" has more than one meaning and predates automobiles. >propel or carry along by force in a specified direction
- digitalzombie 9y ago> t really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain. You can say the same with Japan. Mongols never invaded it cause of bad weather. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan
- bhnmmhmd 9y agoGiven their vicious inhumane barbarity and brutality, I'm sure if his tomb was found, millions of people would want to destroy it and exhume his body and smash it into smithereens. What they did to Iran (formerly Persia) and the middle east can not be forgotten. Killing a mother while she was breastfeeding her infant baby? Even animals don't do that. I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
- selectodude 9y agoI think they're a bit too worried about living on $1.25/day to have strong opinions on Ghengis Khan.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> I don't know how Mongols today live with that. Don't look too closely into your own ancestry; the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history.
- bhnmmhmd 9y ago> the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history. I think you're forgetting about the fact that in all human history, Genghis stands out as one of the cruelest and most violent rulers. As far as I know, Iranians (Persians) never did the same thing to other nations, not even for revenge. I guess that's the main reason saving Iranians from "existential despair".
- oconnor663 9y agoHe also does a good job of pointing out that not everyone in the world feels good about how the Khan "civilized" it.
- GenericsMotors 9y agoAll the raping and pillaging will have that effect...
- silassales 9y agoIf you prefer books, a great series on this topic is: http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/221220/the-khan-series-5-book-bundle-by-conn-iggulden/9780345538468/ http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/221220/the-khan-seri... By Conn Iggulden
- davidreiss 9y agoDan Carlin is an entertainer rather than a historian. So please take anything he says with a grain of salt. > It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain. It was dumb luck that the first major european campaign ended. But it was also lots of diplomatic negotiations and the Pope's willingness to "humble" himself before the "Great Khans". Because of the christian tradition of "Render under Caesar" set by jesus himself in the new testament, Popes and christian leaders were willing to "bow before the khan". Whereas other leaders ( muslim, chinese, russians, etc ) refused for variety of reasons and were conquered. Also, the pope had the benefit of seeing mongols crush one empire after another by the time the mongols reached europe, so they weren't blinded by hubris like the Khwarazmian empire. For example, when the mongols sent a delegation to the shah of khwarazmian, he had them tortured and killed and sent a humiliated surviving diplomat back to genghis khan. The pope knew about what happened to the shah and the khwarazmian empire and he knew to act accordingly. When the mongols sent a delegate to Rome, he didn't have them tortured and killed. Instead the pope sent out his own delegation to develop political ties. Even trying to form alliances with the mongols against the muslims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_non_solum The history of western civilization changed completely because the "humility" of the pope and the catholic church. It was the friendly relations with the mongol empire which gave italians lucrative trade relations within the mongol empire which led to the rise of the medicis, the italian renaissance and a rebirth of europe from the doldrums of the dark ages. Arguably one of the most important events in human history is the many trade delegations the pope sent to mongolia to get favorable trade deals with the mongol empire. Without that, we don't have italian renaissance. And the collapse of the mongol empire and especially the golden horde which led to a completely severing of links between italy/europe to the rest of asia is what led to the age of european exploration. It was the collapse of the overland trade routes protected by the mongols that led to europe's search for a sea route. It isn't a coincidence that columbus set for sail a few years after Ivan the Great defeated the golden horde in 1480 and ended mongol rule over the rus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_stand_on_the_Ugra_river https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_stand_on_the_Ugra_river
- 9y ago
- devuo 9y agoSurely you mean western shores of Portugal, or the Iberian Peninsula? Portugal was founded in 1139, Spain as a single entity, and not a collection of Kingdoms was founded in 1469, 200 and so years after Genghis Khan (1162-1227).
- dragonwriter 9y agoIIRC, “Spain”, like “Germany”, was a geographic name long before it identified a particular polity. In any case it's a geographic name coextensive with a modern polity now, and a modern speaker using it to identify a geographic location even for events that predate the modern polity is normal and clear.
- devuo 9y agoHispania != Spain. In any case, the westernmost region on the Iberian peninsula was and still is occupied by a country then known and still known as Portugal.
- dark_ph0enix 9y ago"Western shores of Portugal", FTFY
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoThe Mongols would have had a much more difficult time than people assume, and probably would have failed in their attempt to conquer Europe. See https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Mongols-have-a-reasonable-chance-of-conquering-Europe-in-the-13th-century-had-Ogedei-not-died-just-before-launching-his-invasion https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Mongols-have-a-reasonable-chan... especially the answer by Tim ONeil.
- Chathamization 9y ago> especially the answer by Tim ONeil. That's a pretty bad answer. Look at the conquest of Southern Song - the Mongols were operating far from the steppe, they were up against a large number of fortified positions, and in terrain that wasn't well suited for them (Southern China is not "open country", like Tim ONeill claims). It also didn't fall quickly (the way he says the centralized polities fell), it took decades of devastating war. It's true that people often exaggerate how close Western Europe came to being conquered by the Mongols. But people arguing against that idea often throw around just as much bad history.
- notfromhere 9y agoLook to how the Hungarians stopped the Mongols from invading. Same strategy would work in western europe
- gamblor956 9y agoThe Mongols made no gains in Southern Song until the Song court was foolish enough to punish one of their generals for holding off the Mongol invasion, at which point he defected to the Mongols. Even then, it still took a years-long siege by a general who knew all of the weaknesses in the Song defenses to take the city. In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol invasion...it had 3. This meant the Mongols could capture the kingdom with a handful of simultaneous sustained sieges. In contrast, at this time, there were hundreds of castles in Europe, most built to withstand years-long sieges, and most within reinforcement range of their neighbors. Furthermore, Western Europe back then was heavily forested. Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films. Traversing this wilderness would have been possible but difficult for small groups. For an army of mounted horsemen, it would have been extremely difficult. For an army of horsemen each requiring multiple horses, it would have been effectively impossible. Combining the lack of grazing pasture for the horses, the wild forests preventing the Mongols from utilizing their hit-and-run tactics to any meaningful effect, and the necessity to carry out thousands of sieges and blockades against a well-fed and entrenched enemy, the Mongols had no chance to invade Western Europe.
- novembermike 9y agoI'm not really sure that Europe was that helpless. IIRC the mongols basically couldn't take European castles. As you go further west in the 1200s you start seeing higher population densities. Poland, Germany and France are all roughly the same size and in this time frame IIRC Poland had 2 million people, Germany had 10 million and France had 20 million. With the higher density came a higher density of fortifications. With a low density the Mongols could just bypass anything they couldn't take, but with enough of these forts an invading army opened itself to attack from every direction. The newer European fortresses were also a lot harder for the Mongols to attack. IIRC the Hungarians had 5 in the region the Mongols attacked and none of them fell. Germany had thousands, and they were generally higher quality. Even if they could get inside the city it was attackers in leather against defenders in plate or chain. The Mongols had no real advantages in a siege situation since they couldn't bring their coordination or mobility to bear.
- nshm 9y agoModern history gives significantly lower estimates for those numbers, it was likely less than 2 million people in France. At the same time the Mongol's army was probably about 20k people, not 500k as claimed.
- novembermike 9y agoAre you sure you aren't thinking of post plague Europe? I just double checked wikipedia and it basically says between 13-20 million people in France depending on what you consider to be "France" (modern borders are closer to 20 million).
- valuearb 9y agoThe mongols adopted the best tools of their enemies, they had a complete army that included siege weapons built by chinese siege engineers. They were the first to use artillery in Europe. They conquered far larger and better fortified chinese cities than any piddling castles in Europe. And you can't trap the mongols, their mobile army lived off the land and moved far too fast with a lethality that european armies couldn't deal with. The death of Chenggis Khan was the only thing that saved Europe from a massacre and enslavement by the mongols.
- bwb 9y agoBest history podcast hands down, and in my top 5 all time podcasts. All his stuff is great, check out the WW1 series too.
- Boothroid 9y agoContrast the Mongolians celebration of their imperial glory with western guilt about imperialism. Why is one OK and the other not? Is it just a matter of timescale or perspective? It makes me think about how the Georgians celebrate Stalin, whilst everyone else seems to consider him a butcher.
- beisner 9y agoThey had different notions about equality. I'm not sure about the mongols, but many civilizations believed that their king was chosen by God, and his moral directive was to conquer all the earth.
- logicchains 9y agoLike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny?
- vowelless 9y agoIt's probably because of the Age of Enlightenment in the west that did a thorough self evaluation over a few centuries. That type of self evaluation is rare in other cultures. As someone from the middle East (with a high chance of having Mongol blood), it does annoy me how much people are enamoured by Genghis khan. The guy was a brutal imperialist.
- e59d134d 9y agoHypocrisy is amazing in most of the world. I was international student and met many at my university. It was mind boggling how almost everyone would celebrate their cultures' conquests & wars and at the same time call Western conquests evil and the worst thing. It was also amazing how most of the Western students would agree that Western imperialism was horrible but never argue against glorification of other cultures horrible wars.
- sumedh 9y agoI guess it's because of the timescales. I am assuming the people who celebrate the wars of kings in their lands are more than 500 years old while Western colonialism sort of stopped just 50-100 years back. So the Western atrocities are still fresh in the mind while people forget the 1000 year old atrocities.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- acdjuiamadfn 9y agoHe was a plunderer, I see no need to lionize and romanticize him.
- davidreiss 9y agoHe was a plunderer but he also started something that changed the world.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoThe level of destruction of people and centres of culture puts any praise of him beyond the pale. His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv
- Lokran 9y agoFranklin D. Roosevelt destroyed the largest city in all of Asia.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoHow does that make it okay? Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately. It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
- Lokran 9y agoIt doesn't, I was just pointing out that if atrocious military actions means that you can't say anything good about a person there are a lot of leaders included in that. >Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Merv has surrendered, but the war wasn't over. It wasn't just mindless killing, it was for a military objective. >Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately. You don't target enemy military assets with fire bombings. >It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army. The motivation for it wasn't to kill civilians, it was always for military reasons.
- apapli 9y agoThe photo in this article inspired me to do a google image search on mongolia. Never did I realise how much beauty is over there. For some reason I just gathered Mongolia consisted of either just desert, snow, or desert and snow. Just beautiful, perhaps one day I will make it there.
- Diederich 9y agoMap surfing has been one of my favorite past-times since I first picked up a map.
- macspoofing 9y agoI've seen some documentaries. Absolutely gorgeous country.
- morghus 9y agoI would add beautiful people as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewr-vzw4ZWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewr-vzw4ZWo
- josu 9y agoThere is a great way to make it to Mongolia: by train. You can take the Trans-Siberian Railway [0] and connect with the Trans-Mongolian Line [1]. These are relatively slow trains, it takes about a week to go from Moskow to Ulaanbaatar. I haven't done it myself, but it's definitively on my bucket list. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-Mongolian_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-Mongolian_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...
- theklub 9y agoIf you are interested in this check out the Expedition Unknown episode on Genghis Khan's tomb. They basically know where it is but aren't allowed to uncover it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fallingfrog 9y agoI don't like the reverential tone here; Ghengis Khan is one of the top contenders for the title of Worst Human Being in History, if the criteria are body count and suffering inflicted. We have a tendency to worship power and dominance even today, but there is no virtue in power for the sake of power.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoCaesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shihuang, and many other warlords, generals, emperors, ... Was Genghis Khan appreciably worse than these guys? Or is the way history works amoral?
- fallingfrog 9y ago"Or is the way history works amoral?" This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference between history and ethics, as topics of study. The historical evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what history can talk about - the facts and the context. As for the moral question of whether or not mass murder is morally acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and my own opinion- is that no, it is not.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoIt is "history", but it doesn't seem to too negatively affect our view of him. In fact, these atrocities sort of get drowned out in the noise of human history's numbers almost continual atrocities. We all know Genghis Khan killed lots of people, we all know what Caesar, Alexander did also. We know about the genocides that occurred as many cultures (often our own) displaced other cultures (many completely obliterated). Heck, that is even before we look at things like colonialism. Humans have a history of simply being barbarians, it is hard to judge morally more than a few hundred years in the past.
- fallingfrog 9y ago
- hobarrera 9y agoI'm completely amazed (and a bit disgusted) at how they don't want the tomb to be found "out of respect". The guy was responsible for the eradication of many civilizations, and a ridiculous amount of plundering, death, and destruction. How can you act "out of respect" to that?