3 ms·

> "There is no way you could rule over that many people solely by force with such a relatively small army. It's just not possible." This completely undersells

> "There is no way you could rule over that many people solely by force with such a relatively small army. It's just not possible." This completely undersells Genghis Khan’s use of terror. Everyone knew what happened if you resisted the Mongols. Khwarazm and Baghdad were illustrations of their willingness for wholesale slaughter. And the massacres were designed to inspire terror with horrific cruelty broadcast widely.

divbzero 2y ago
“The Wrath of Khans” by Dan Carlin is an excellent four-episode series (Hardcore History 43–47) highlighting the brutal effectiveness of Mongol tactics: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dan-carlin-hardcore-history-archives/id1745955935 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dan-carlin-hardcore-hi... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-the-khans-series/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-...
29athrowaway 2y ago
Genghis Khan was a bit like Pablo Escobar. "Plata o plomo" (silver = trade, or, lead = death) In the end, "War is a racket" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
- wslh 2y ago
  The concept of "War is a racket" could be applied to any externalities of the world, in the economy there are a lot of organizations and people who are benefiting from others' suffering. Beyond the ethical and/or moral factor it is what it is. There could be cases where controlling those factors goes against public interest (again, without putting an ethical/moral side). I think that when you add moral aspects your enemy takes advantages. That is war, the continuation of politics. Also, the recommendations put in your link [1] hasn't been widely proven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket#Recommendations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket#Recommendation...
jltsiren 2y ago
If you rule by military force, it's the military that rules, not you. You have no reason to assume that the military will remain loyal to you and especially to your successors. Sooner or later, local warlords will decide that they are the real Mongols nobody dares to resist, and then the empire will fragment. If you want to keep the empire unified, you need a civilian government and civilian institutions to keep the military under control.
- lazide 2y ago
  Then you just end up with fragmented bureaucracies, with local politicians doing the same thing instead of local warlords.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  There wasn't the same division of civil and military government in the mongol system, or even civilian institutions as we'd understand them today. The mongol empire ran in large part on "loyalty networks", where subordinates would be personally loyal to their patron specifically, not any office they held [1]. Powerful people wouldn't assume loyalty, they'd be constantly engaged in building and maintaining the loyalty of their subordinates in order to maintain their own power. If this sounds like it'd lead to dynamic systems of government full of infighting, indeed it did. That was part of the enduring success of Central Asian polities and broadly similar to e.g. Europe. [1] Small caveat on this in that royal families held something akin to the mandate of heaven by virtue of their heredity. This mandate did not necessarily follow lineal descent and regularly transferred to siblings, family, or even close vassals that outshone than the original line.
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    >[1] Small caveat on this in that royal families held something akin to the mandate of heaven by virtue of their heredity. They pretended that they did have such a divine right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings Events like the French Revolution proved them wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
fuzztester 2y ago
>> "There is no way you could rule over that many people solely by force with such a relatively small army. It's just not possible." >This completely undersells Genghis Khan’s use of terror. Everyone knew what happened if you resisted the Mongols. Khwarazm and Baghdad were illustrations of their willingness for wholesale slaughter. And the massacres were designed to inspire terror with horrific cruelty broadcast widely. Right. This article explains it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Specifically, the sections about their war techniques, which were clever, and often fooled or overpowered their enemies, although they did lose battles sometimes, too. P.S. Downvoter dude, er, brat, is prolly too lazy, hasty or clueless, to even scan the article (for the Mongols' techniques) that I linked, before their nervously twitching trigger finger touches that downvote icon. Seen this behaviour many times on HN (Hasty and Nervous). :)

divbzero 2y ago

“The Wrath of Khans” by Dan Carlin is an excellent four-episode series (Hardcore History 43–47) highlighting the brutal effectiveness of Mongol tactics: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dan-carlin-hardcore-history-archives/id1745955935 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dan-carlin-hardcore-hi... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-the-khans-series/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-...

29athrowaway 2y ago

Genghis Khan was a bit like Pablo Escobar. "Plata o plomo" (silver = trade, or, lead = death) In the end, "War is a racket" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

wslh 2y ago
The concept of "War is a racket" could be applied to any externalities of the world, in the economy there are a lot of organizations and people who are benefiting from others' suffering. Beyond the ethical and/or moral factor it is what it is. There could be cases where controlling those factors goes against public interest (again, without putting an ethical/moral side). I think that when you add moral aspects your enemy takes advantages. That is war, the continuation of politics. Also, the recommendations put in your link [1] hasn't been widely proven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket#Recommendations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket#Recommendation...

jltsiren 2y ago

If you rule by military force, it's the military that rules, not you. You have no reason to assume that the military will remain loyal to you and especially to your successors. Sooner or later, local warlords will decide that they are the real Mongols nobody dares to resist, and then the empire will fragment. If you want to keep the empire unified, you need a civilian government and civilian institutions to keep the military under control.

lazide 2y ago
Then you just end up with fragmented bureaucracies, with local politicians doing the same thing instead of local warlords.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
There wasn't the same division of civil and military government in the mongol system, or even civilian institutions as we'd understand them today. The mongol empire ran in large part on "loyalty networks", where subordinates would be personally loyal to their patron specifically, not any office they held [1]. Powerful people wouldn't assume loyalty, they'd be constantly engaged in building and maintaining the loyalty of their subordinates in order to maintain their own power. If this sounds like it'd lead to dynamic systems of government full of infighting, indeed it did. That was part of the enduring success of Central Asian polities and broadly similar to e.g. Europe. [1] Small caveat on this in that royal families held something akin to the mandate of heaven by virtue of their heredity. This mandate did not necessarily follow lineal descent and regularly transferred to siblings, family, or even close vassals that outshone than the original line.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  >[1] Small caveat on this in that royal families held something akin to the mandate of heaven by virtue of their heredity. They pretended that they did have such a divine right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings Events like the French Revolution proved them wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

fuzztester 2y ago

>> "There is no way you could rule over that many people solely by force with such a relatively small army. It's just not possible." >This completely undersells Genghis Khan’s use of terror. Everyone knew what happened if you resisted the Mongols. Khwarazm and Baghdad were illustrations of their willingness for wholesale slaughter. And the massacres were designed to inspire terror with horrific cruelty broadcast widely. Right. This article explains it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

fuzztester 2y ago
Specifically, the sections about their war techniques, which were clever, and often fooled or overpowered their enemies, although they did lose battles sometimes, too. P.S. Downvoter dude, er, brat, is prolly too lazy, hasty or clueless, to even scan the article (for the Mongols' techniques) that I linked, before their nervously twitching trigger finger touches that downvote icon. Seen this behaviour many times on HN (Hasty and Nervous). :)