4 ms·
That appears to be their argument. Mine would be that the Mongols were brutal and efficient administrators. Killing 50 million people and being a good administ
by Amezarak 3y ago
That appears to be their argument.
Mine would be that the Mongols were brutal and efficient administrators. Killing 50 million people and being a good administrator are orthogonal concepts.
Reading through the Wikipedia article, you can also find references to the Mongols engaging in deliberate cultural destruction, including the massive wastage of books, and targeted religious persecution. I am not sure where the Mongol revisionism comes from but it is surprising to me.
- vaidhy 3y agoThe original point is that europeans were not great at embracing the culture of the people they ruled over, contrary to what Yuval says. He contrasts mongols with european conquests and in my mind, they were the same.
- simpletone 3y ago[flagged]
- jjjjj55555 3y agoI'm not the person you posed the question to, nor am I challenging what you're saying. However, it was my understanding that cities that resisted them would sometimes be destroyed en masse. They didn't need to kill them all with bows and arrows. They would round everyone up and bury them in a hole or execute them. Hulegu himself put the death toll in Baghdad at 200,000. I think that widescale murder was entirely possible at the time. It would be difficult to name ethnicities or cultures that were wiped out, precisely because they were wiped out, wouldn't it?
- jjjjj55555 3y agoCould you explain some more about how they were good administrators? I always had the impression that they were good conquerors but bad administrators. They'd conquer you then leave you alone as long as you paid your taxes. If you tell me that the Romans or Persians were good administrators, that makes sense. We know they implemented laws, tax systems, roads, construction projects, etc. Do we have evidence that the Mongols did the same and did it as effectively?