Hence, it follows that if you want to unite people, you must create a common enemy for them to oppose.
Arguably, however, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were the dominant force that shaped Eurasia and consequently the modern world. More lastingly, in the word's of the author: With the emphasis on free commerce, open communication, shared knowledge, secular politics, religious coexistence, international law, and diplomatic immunity.
Those blood-thirsty brutish sods so close to animals that we named a major genetic deficiency after them?
This is the largest empire in history. Genghis divided his empire among his four children, while investing one of them with supreme paramountship.
The unity could not be preserved, however, and the individual khanates drifted apart. Even so, Eurasia's main contemporary centres of power have all their roots in the Mongol empire. China, which after the Tang had broken up into separate kingdoms — the Jin and the Song — was unified politically and administratively by Khubilai Khan, one of Genghis' grandchildren.
Thereafter, China was able to maintain its geographic and political integrity despite the succession of dynasties. The Abbasid Caliphate centred on Baghdad was replaced by the Ilkhanate, which eventually became the heart of Persia.
The Mongols of the Golden Horde first moved north towards Novgorod in Russia, then veered sharply south and destroyed Kiev and its Viking civilisation — some say at the behest of the Venetians, who schemed to achieve a monopoly of the slave trade.
As a result the centre of power in the region shifted to the north, and czarist Russia eventually emerged. Eastern Europe was laid waste, but the remainder of the sub-continent was spared — possibly because the plunder was judged not to be worth the bother.
Europe continued its trajectory as a bunch of warring micro-states vying among each other for hegemony in the region — an issue settled only at the end of WW II. The Mongols' was the first modern army. It was built on a rational structure based, like the Roman legion, on units in the multiple of tens and promotion was strictly on merit.
Thoroughly disciplined and highly mobile — infantry was unknown — it could execute complex tactical manoeuvres in silence upon orders from centralised command.
Speed and efficiency in conquest were their trademark, and the source of the fear they struck in the enemy. Horse and bow where the Mongol warriors' strength — and it the end their weakness.
Forests hindered the deployment of mounted armies, in the humid heat of India the bows failed, and the horses' strength faded when they could not find pastures in the Syrian desert. Warfare technology and logistics were other factors in the Mongols' superiority.
The gunpowder formula was changed to yield explosive force, rather than slow burn as in fire-lances and rockets. Guns and cannon were developed. Specialised troops of craftsmen were skilled in building complex siege machines from local materials — obviating the need to move them over long distances.
They perfected sapping of walls, thus making static defence impossible. A dedicated medical corps looked after the wounded. The army and its horses spread across the plains for forage and sustenance, thus obviating for the need for supply lines — yet a sophisticated communication system based on melodies to ensure accurate memorisation allowed the scattered troops to regroup at short notice and to remain in touch with the distant leadership.
The intelligence system was second to none, and the Mongols knew much more about the lands they were about to invade than the defenders knew about the Mongols — if nothing else because the latter lived off the land and needed to know where water and pastures were to be found.
In addition, the Mongols developed highly sophisticated methods of psychological warfare, spreading rumours about their cruelty and destruction. This unsettled the rural populations that then fled before the advancing army, hamstringing the defence efforts.
To what extent the Mongols' vaunted cruelty was real must remain an open question, according to Weatherford. Few traces remain, among the excavated ruins of desert cities that were pillaged, of massive-scale slaughter, and what is left indicates that the number of casualties was likely to have been inflated by a factor of ten.
What seems established is that the Mongols promised justice to those who surrendered, but they swore destruction to those who resisted, particularly if they rebelled and thus threatened supply lines or withdrawal routes.
And the Mongols kept their word.
Yet the Mongols did not torture, mutilate or main — which sets them apart from the rulers and religious leaders from China to Europe who depended upon such gruesome displays to control their own people. More specifically Genghis — having battled competing aristocratic lineages to unify his people — was set on killing the aristocrats, whose loyalty, dependability and usefulness he had come to doubt, thus essentially decapitating the social system of the enemy and minimising future resistance.
In so doing he shrewdly recognised that the common people cared little about what befell the idle rich. Cities, particularly in the desert, were razed in order to redirect trade flows, and irrigation systems were demolished in order to make agricultural fields revert to pastures for the horses.
Plunder was the Mongol army's basic aim, and plunder would be gathered centrally to be distributed in a fair and transparent way among the troops and the relatives of the fallen — the khubi system. In the process they had to record massive amounts of numerical information.
What was not plundered, was counted and stored — and thus emerged a highly sophisticated bureaucracy that kept track of the accumulated wealth.The rise of the Mongol Empire represented the peak in a history of ties and tensions between two lifestyles, nomadic and settled people The dream of trying to unify and centralize the rule of an Islamic state ended in when the Mongols sacked Baghdad.
The Mongol transformation of Afro-Eurasia. A. Mongol conquest may have arisen from. Whereas most histories of the Mongols have long emphasized their unprecedented success in war, Weatherford builds a solid case that shows the social and economic achievements of the Mongols may have been even more remarkable than their adaptations to warfare.
A Brief History Of China. The Asian Way Of Life: CHINA. Author: Robert Guisepi. Date: China: The Formative Centuries. The formative period of Chinese history - the era of the Shang and Chou. The Mongols gradually conquered China, and ultimately ruled the land under the leadership of Khubilai Khan, grandson of Chinggis Khan.
Source 1 is a brief overview of the gradual conquest of China by the Mongols. Where did the Mongols reside E Asia Pre-Genghis Khan, how were the Mongols orghanized? Displayed a deep loyalty to kin groups organized into families, clans, and tribes Strong loyalties to kinship groups meant that the Mongols couldn’t do what?
Create a stable, large scale society What was the original name of Genghis Khan? Temujin Genghis . The Mongols Crash Course 1) What is the classic peasants into his tribe over the wealthy help Genghis Khan unify the nomadic tribes? It made the poor love him, and the poor were the majority, so it was easy to rule because he had total control over the majority.
5 Reasons why Mongols are NOT so awesome They reinvigorated cross-Eurasian.