Legacy of Genghis Khan

[427cobra]

I wouldn't put either Hannibal or Caeser in the league of Ghengis Khan or Alexander. Though over the course of centuries, Rome did come to rival the conquests of Alexander.

The Legacy aspect is interesting in terms of how war and conquest did lead to peace and civilization in all three cases. The relative peace over a large area after Alexander did allow the rise of the Hellenistic civilization. Centuries of relative peace also allowed civilization to flourish over widespread areas after the Roman and Mongol conquests. Kind of an irony that brutal military conquests have led to so much beauty, art and prosperity in the extended good times that followed.

A case could also be made, in spite of the small current wars that have never stopped, that it is the Pax Americana of having a single large superpower that is allowing economies and standards of living currently to rise so fast in so many parts of the world.

I wasn't putting him in the same league. Hannibal is the greatest general who ever lived end of story. Having said that they do share similar traits. Intense, driven, charasmatic, powerful, inventive, intuitive and more. Caesar was a self promoting egomanic, who while brilliant on the battlefield and in the political arena, was still doing it for his own glorification. Alexander shared similar qualities, but was a much wiser and more noble person. He more so appreciated the knowledge and wisdom he could gain from other places.

I'd agree, without a doubt that the Pax Americana has led to greater advances socially and ecomically than would have been possible had a country with less resources and stable governing system been leading the world (i.e. any european nation).

 

[takingchances42]

I wasn't putting him in the same league. Hannibal is the greatest general who ever lived end of story. Having said that they do share similar traits. Intense, driven, charasmatic, powerful, inventive, intuitive and more. Caesar was a self promoting egomanic, who while brilliant on the battlefield and in the political arena, was still doing it for his own glorification. Alexander shared similar qualities, but was a much wiser and more noble person. He more so appreciated the knowledge and wisdom he could gain from other places.

I'd agree, without a doubt that the Pax Americana has led to greater advances socially and ecomically than would have been possible had a country with less resources and stable governing system been leading the world (i.e. any european nation).

It depends on how you define what makes a good general. In my post about not being in the "same league" I wasn't talking about generalship at all, but the legacy left by well known conquerors. Ghenghis Khan and Alexander created vast empires, and their legacies profoundly changed the world, culturally as well as militarily. Caeser expanded an already powerful empire. Hannibal, however valiant and skillful his struggle, did not succeed.

Generalship would come down to who did the most, with the least, against the most powerful opposition. From that perspective, Ghengis Khan would be the greatest of the group, as he started with far less than Hannibal or the others, and conquered the most of any of them -- starting with the powerful Chinese empire, and then going far beyond that.

 

[427cobra]

It depends on how you define what makes a good general. In my post about not being in the "same league" I wasn't talking about generalship at all, but the legacy left by well known conquerors. Ghenghis Khan and Alexander created vast empires, and their legacies profoundly changed the world, culturally as well as militarily. Caeser expanded an already powerful empire. Hannibal, however valiant and skillful his struggle, did not succeed.

Generalship would come down to who did the most, with the least, against the most powerful opposition. From that perspective, Ghengis Khan would be the greatest of the group, as he started with far less than Hannibal or the others, and conquered the most of any of them -- starting with the powerful Chinese empire, and then going far beyond that.

Good point. But in that case the goals of the subjects are to be factored in as well. Hannibal had no support from home during his 16 year campaign and yet, while growing weaker by the year, held all of southern Italy. By the tme of the Roman invasion of north Africa, Hannibal was at less than 35, 000 totaly troops. He'd lost somewhere near 275, 000, none of which he could afford to dispense with. The Romans on the other hand grew stronger by the year, yet were so terrified of him that, even though they outnumbered him at times 6 to 1, wuld not engage him in open battle. Hannibal crossed the Alps with only 45-50,000 troops to begin with. He added more, but not much, from allies he'd secured in the Italian confederices as well as various barbarian tribes. Kahn may have started out with even less, but he grew stronger while his opponents grew weaker. Also, Kahn was out to conquer territory. Hannibal was out to gain more favorable trading postitions for Carthage. To be honest, Khan had the easier job. Grab land and hold it, make the populace submit, grab more territory ect. Hannibal, had to make complex political alliences, fight innovative battles, deal with a supreme lack of support from home, bad luck in his last 13 years, and a very pissd off Roman republic, who could easily field a 500, 000 man army against him, as well as some very fine commanders.

I did misread your post though. The legacy left by Kahn is greater, if you were talking about the ability to forge an empire. Here though, too, Alexander is supreme amonst very skilled seconds. It does beg the question, what IF Hannibal had been of the conquering and empire building nature? What would our world have been like?

 

[Olivianna]

Generalship would come down to who did the most, with the least, against the most powerful opposition. From that perspective, Ghengis Khan would be the greatest of the group, as he started with far less than Hannibal or the others, and conquered the most of any of them -- starting with the powerful Chinese empire, and then going far beyond that.

Indeed. Of course, the Mongols (GK died in 1227 [I think] and his heirs continued the business of conquest, sacking Baghdad only in 1258) had made alliances with various groups that helped them to maintain their positions of dominance through the end of the 13th century and into the beginning of the 14th. For example, one of the Il Khans (before they converted to Islam - Ghazan Khan was the 1st to go this way) married a Byzantine princess, thus forging an alliance with that once powerful empire. In addition, the Mongols quickly gained favor among Muslims in Persia - some needed a job, some just wanted to oppose their own enemies (either the Mamluks or Rum Seljuk). Once the conquering was done, it seems, it was a tricky job of maintaining such a vast empire - remember, the Mongols ended up dividing up the territory into four pieces (Golden Horde, Il Khanate, Chagatai Khanate, Great Khan [China]) among brothers who were not necessarily best buddies. It is remarkable that this system worked out...though as time passed, the empire quickly became more fragmented...by the 1330s, it was the twilight of the Il Khans, though their legacy lived on in architecture, technique of governing, art, etc. (see the show!).

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Legacy of Genghis Khan

 

[takingchances42]

Indeed. Of course, the Mongols (GK died in 1227 [I think] and his heirs continued the business of conquest, sacking Baghdad only in 1258) had made alliances with various groups that helped them to maintain their positions of dominance through the end of the 13th century and into the beginning of the 14th. For example, one of the Il Khans (before they converted to Islam - Ghazan Khan was the 1st to go this way) married a Byzantine princess, thus forging an alliance with that once powerful empire. In addition, the Mongols quickly gained favor among Muslims in Persia - some needed a job, some just wanted to oppose their own enemies (either the Mamluks or Rum Seljuk). Once the conquering was done, it seems, it was a tricky job of maintaining such a vast empire - remember, the Mongols ended up dividing up the territory into four pieces (Golden Horde, Il Khanate, Chagatai Khanate, Great Khan [China]) among brothers who were not necessarily best buddies. It is remarkable that this system worked out...though as time passed, the empire quickly became more fragmented...by the 1330s, it was the twilight of the Il Khans, though their legacy lived on in architecture, technique of governing, art, etc. (see the show!).

Indeed, back at you! If you look at territory conquered in the shortest number of years, then Alexander may very well have exceeded Genghis Khan, as he conquered such a tremendous amount of territory in 13 years. But he had the advantages of inheriting a large and powerful army from a father, Phillip II, who had over 23 years subjucated Greece and was getting ready to take on Persia. Interesting too, that Alexander's empire quickly fragmented into Macedon, Egypt and the Seleucid Empire.

I believe that while Carthage was never part of Alexander's empire, the culture of Carthage was Hellenistic as well as Punic, and in that sense, Hannibal was attempting to spread Alexander's legacy in his wars with Rome.

I do wonder if the cultural legacies of both Alexander and Ghenghis Khan spring as much from the conquests themselves, as they do from the relative peace and stability that followed. Societies were turned upside down in each case, and new things were created. Could those times of paradigm change and political ferment be what led to artistic and philosophical ferment and change?

I wish I could see the show!

 

[427cobra]

Re: Re: Re: Legacy of Genghis Khan

Stupid idiot AHAHAHAHAHHA amers are soooo stupid. You guys have no brains or education.

your education system has gone down the toilet ahahah george bush masters from harvard hahahaha that is funny the toilet is where your education system belongs heh

Insulting me only shows how small your mind is. Makes me wonder if you can engage in a intellectual conversation/debate using words that are longer than one syllable. Americans are not stupid, unlike some other people. Try to keep on a topic you might understand, like watching grass grow or paint dry.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Don't fuss about Yoyo. He's one that's worth ignoring.

GK was a skilled military leader. His principles of scouting, horse "shock troops" and overwhelming force were an innovation for the period.

Even rarer, he was also known as a skilled government leader who established a functional government across the wide territories that he conquered. It was mentioned that several of the other successful military leaders took over territories that later fractured, GK's empire perservered for generations.

 

[Rex1960]

just in case...

... somebody's interested.

We shouldn't confuse all those Khans.

Genghis Khan ("supreme conquerer") original name was Temujin.
He was able to unite several mongole tribes to one strong army.
As far as I remember one of the reasons they had been so effective was, they were the first who used saddles on a horseback and were able to shoot arrows and fight with sword/shield while riding.
Genghis was the founder of the first mongol empire and its first great khan. Their traditional religion was shamanism. But since they adopted a lot of culture wherever they conquered (like their script from the Uigurs) they also adopted other religions like buddhism and islam.
Genghis vast domain was divided among his four sons (Juchi, Jagatai, Tule and Great Khan Ogadai) and several grandsons

It was grandson Kublai Khan who founded the Yüan dynasty in China and invited Marco Polo.
It was Juchi and his son Batu who founded the Golden Horde (tatars)
And i guess it was Timur (who only claimed to be a descendent of Genghis) who adopted Islam while conquering Persia and the Delhi Sultanates...

 

[Olivianna]

Re: just in case...

And i guess it was Timur (who only claimed to be a descendent of Genghis) who adopted Islam while conquering Persia and the Delhi Sultanates...

Timur was of Turkic origin and came from the Chagatai tribes. Timur was only born in 1336 - Islam was adopted by the Ilkhanid Mongols during the reign of Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304). Actually, he was rather "conspicuously Muslim" - he built big to show off. In his main mosque in Samarqand, there is a Koran stand that is about 5' tall and 6' wide - and it held a Koran of comparable size!

 

[Rex1960]

Re: Re: just in case...

Timur was of Turkic origin and came from the Chagatai tribes. Timur was only born in 1336 - Islam was adopted by the Ilkhanid Mongols during the reign of Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304). Actually, he was rather "conspicuously Muslim" - he built big to show off. In his main mosque in Samarqand, there is a Koran stand that is about 5' tall and 6' wide - and it held a Koran of comparable size!

see...
easy for this lil german to confuse that islam adoption thing....

And i guess you mean the Bibi Khan Mosque with its turquoise cupola (built by Timur to the memory of his favorite wife)

 

[Olivianna]

Exactly! Have you been? Would love to go...

 

[Rex1960]

Exactly! Have you been? Would love to go...

nope - not yet.
Would love to go myself. Uzbekistan has a lot of these architecture treasures. Friend of mine just came back from a trip to Samarkand, Tashkent and Bukhara. He said he met the friendliest people there...

 

[427cobra]

Don't fuss about Yoyo. He's one that's worth ignoring.

Thanks. Not that I was worried or anything, but when an idiot speaks I feel I;ve got to respond. Thanks for the encouragement, though.