1. Attila the Hun, Genghiz Khan, and Tamerlane share the same reputation of brutal, blood-thirsty barbarians who were after nothing more (or less) but the destruction of the so-called civilized world. Do they deserve this reputation or a case can be made in defense of one or all of these leaders?
Attila the Hun
Attila the Hun and his brother Bleda became “joint leader” of the empire after their father Mundzuk was supposedly killed by his brother, who took over the empire but was exiled because they thought him the killer of Mundzuk. They began to rule at about 435, but Bleda was killed in a supposedly “hunting accident” by his brother Attila . With his brother out of the way Attila began to battle the “Eastern Empire.” And he attacked …show more content…
Tamerlane was an Islamic leader, who was called “Timur the Lame” as a result of a war injury that causes him to limp. He has battled without mercy with those that refuse to surrender, he saw them as the cause of their problems. Although he was a great soldier, but many were relief at his death in 1405, because he’d “burned and buried people alive,” built building with human captives, destroyed peoples’ farmland etc. Unfortunately he failed to set future goals for his empire like Genghiz Khan had done. Due to his poor administration, his empire was taken over by the Uzbeks .
These men were great warriors, I believed they must have been called barbarians because they’d sacrifice even family for what they think benefits the empire. Just like Attila the Hun supposedly got rid of his brother. Their diplomatic style suggests them to be smart and not just cut throats. I believe Attila the Hun and Genghiz Khan where the most strategic, their empire last longer than Tamerlane, who was obviously cruel and very well deserve to be called a barbarian.
2. Which of the religious traditions/systems that “traveled” along the Silk Road have you found the most fascinating and why?
Zoroaster was a religion that I found most fascinating because of its similarities with the Christian religion. Zarathrushtra a prophet popularly known
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Some people would say the Mongols were a key development to civilization. However, the progress they made is nothing compared to their cruelty and the process they used to conquer the majority of Asia and parts of the Middle East. The Mongols were originally a small, nomadic tribe that originated from the steppes of Central Asia. The tribe placed little value on objects, considering they moved around in yurts and hardly settled. Led by Genghis Khan, they conquered land worth double the size of the Roman Empire. The Mongols were greedy, bloodthirsty barbarians who had little to no regard for human life. They went to unthinkable lengths to conquer land while destroying countless ancient cities.
The book I have chosen is called Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. This book describes the Mongol Legacy and how his achievements have impacted the globe since he was first found. This book consists of Jack Weatherford’s take of how the Mongolian empire impacted the world. This book is divided into sections that talk about the stages of the Mongol influence.
Mongolian conquests and invasions devastated affected areas and left survivors terrified. To all areas they have invaded including Tangut cities, Novgorod, and Nishapur, Mongols treated inhabitants harshly and most of the time, killed them (Doc.1, 2, 3, 6). Monks
Powerful both militarily and culturally, the Mongols were a fearless and influential group who dominated Asia and Eastern Europe during the thirteenth century. Their success in acquiring land was no doubt the result of their domination on the battlefield. The Mongols often fought on horseback and surrounded their enemies, an incredibly efficient battle tactic. In his text, Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror, Ata-Malik Juvaini states that the Mongols invaded the land and destroyed villages and that they would not let a single living creature live, even if it were the purest of cat or dog (Doc 4). Their battle techniques, as well as their severe punishments, and ability to conquer vast amounts of land gave the
Throughout the 13th century world, the Mongols constantly showed displays of continuous violence, drinking, brutality and unfair treatment. They were considered to be savages, and people who lived far beyond what we would know as a “civilized world.” They single handedly became one of, if not the most powerful empires to have existed, building their empire through violent and barbaric manors. The Mongols were very barbaric people, for they portrayed many inhumane and mannerless actions while their empire lasted, causing death destruction and the downfall of all of the land they took over.
From the mid thirteenth century to the mid fourteenth century the Mongols were on top of the world, yet just as quick as they came, they left. Under Genghis Khan’s rule, and after him his descendants’, the Mongols conquered an enormous part of Eurasia. Along with the conquering came torture, trade, and many other things, be they good or bad. Furthermore, while the Mongols may have destroyed lives, they also saved them. The Mongols legacy has been assessed in a multitude of ways, but the best way is to judge them about a combination of the people that were massacred, and the progress they achieved for civilization as a whole, for if either of these parts are left out, then it is not the true legacy that is being judged.
The world has viewed the Mongols as destructive barbarians; however, the Mongols viewed themselves as soldiers. The perception of themselves is important because they did not believe it was destructive to unite a world empire. They believed that because they were soldiers, anyone in their path could be taken down by force. The nations that defined Mongols as destructive are the same people that resisted joining their empire. The Mongol’s obsession with power, dedication to their leader, and their need to possess land is why I believe they should not be remembered as destructive barbarians. Instead, I think they should be known as the empire that failed to unite the world.
The Mongols were very harsh and brutal like no one else in their era but I believe that they are not barbarians. The Mongols had a strong dominating military that was almost always successful, they contributed to many of the ideas that are still around today, and made a very stern set of laws that kept their community civilized which is why I believe that the Mongols were not barbarians.
Based on what I’ve read I don’t believe that there is an honest yes or no answer to the question, “Can these nomads be called barbarians?” According to Salvian, a Christian priest, he says, “.. almost all barbarians, at least those who are of one race and kin, love each other, while the Romans persecute each other.” However, many of these reads go into detail about the nomadic people never sparing the people of which they conquered or went to war with, and killing them all off one by one. As for the change over time; there was one. After the fall of Rome when the nomadic people took over around 476 CE they kept the same Roman customs, but began introducing nomadic ways of life that, over time, turned out to not be barbaric at all. Over the course of many years you will see the Romans perspective of the nomads and their culture began to change over the course of many years, and after the Fall of Rome.
Temüjin, better known as Chinggis Khan, was a Mongolian born in 1160’s, who later became the leader of the one of the most successful armies in the history of a mankind. Mongols under his leadership Mongols first conquered China relatively easily and then moved towards west, partly simultaneously. This essay examines the reasons for his success in conquering Iran and especially the reasons why the Muslims of Iran were not able to resist his army’s invasion. First this essay discusses Chinggis Khan’s army’s strength and superiority in general level, then shifting focus to the particular case of Iran. It becomes evident that Chinggis Khan was an extraordinary military leader and that besides that the army was extremely successful due to its
When most people hear the word “Barbarian” they often think about the negative things that barbarians have done instead of the positive things that barbarians have done. It is stated in the section titled “Were the Barbarians a Negative or Positive Factor,”
The start of the Mongol Empire began as a system of nomadic pastoralists who were extremely well experienced horsemen and traveled with their flocks of sheep, goats, cattle, and horses over the vast steppes of the prairielands of Central Asia. At the start of the Mongols rise to supremacy was the formation of tribal coalition known as “All the Mongols” (Saunders 1971) While the early tribal coalition was successful at establishing itself as a power in Manchuria and North China, it wasn’t until the rise of a well-known figure did the Mongols ascend to a force to fear and respect. That