Atilla the Hun and Genghiz Khan

921 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Genghis kahn great man

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 [1]. With his brother out of the way Attila began to battle the “Eastern Empire.” And he attacked them mercilessly, teaching his adversaries to be wary of him, and therefore earned himself his barbarian reputation. Although he was famous for his battles and systematic attacks, yet he was said to have led a simple and fair life among his people. He was kind towards his servants and treat those who gave him total submission with less brutality [2].
Genghiz Khan
Unlike Attila, Genghiz Khan also known as Temujin and founder of the Mongol Empire in 1206, fought his way to the top after being exiled from his people at an early age. He was known to be just because he ensure that the spoils were distributed evenly among his warriors and he refrained his warriors from harming the innocents without his permission. Due to his fairness, he lost some friends that fought along with him to retrieve his wife, which the Merkits kidnapped. He was very diplomatic and laid down a solid rule for his army to abide by. He also came up with a good defense mechanism of dividing his army into “arbans (10 people), zuun...

... middle of paper ...

... lost from history. This I think were the ancestors of Attilla the Huns. Although historians disagree about the origin of the Huns in Europe. Research suggests that they might be Hsiung-nu descendants. Many historians refers to the Huns as a “savage race”, because during the 4th century they are thought of as beasts in human form, due to their short statures and quickness with their weapons. In the present day the people that believe they share an “ancestry with the Hun” are “the Bulgars, Chuvash and Magyars”.

Works Cited

1. Wasilewska Ewa, Lecture #12 & #13
2. “The empire of the Steppes” . Retrieved April 21, 2014, from http://ereserve.library.utah.edu/Annual//ANTH/3969/Wasilewska/empire66.pdf?frbrVersion=2
3. “Religions of the silk road” . Retrieved April 21, 2014, from http://ereserve.library.utah.edu/Annual//ANTH/3969/Wasilewska/religions2.pdf?frbrVersion=2

Show More
Related

  • The Mongols: How Barbaric Were the 'Barbarians'?

    1366 Words  | 3 Pages

    The people that the Mongol Empire overthrew were the only ones to suffer under Genghis Khan’s homicidal ways. Khan’s army was forcibly traumatized under maniacal methods as well: “Genghis Khan ordained that the army should be organized in such a way that over ten men should beset one man and he is what we call a captain of ten. [...] When they are in battle, if one or two or even more out of a group of ten run away, all are put to death; and if a whole group of ten flees, the rest of the group of a hundred are all put to death, if they do not flee too. [...] Likewise if one or two or more go forward boldly to the fight, then the rest of the ten are put to death if they do not follow and, if one or more of the ten are captured, their companions are put to death if they do not rescue them.” (doc B) Every group of ten was expected to perform at a homog...

    Read More

  • How Barbaric Were The Mongols Essay

    625 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many people ask “How Barbaric were the Barbarians”. The truth be told, the mongols were more barbaric than they were peaceful. They were able to conquer more than 4,800,000 miles of land using brutal and strategic military tactics, destroy and conquer cities, along with using extremely harsh punishments for their prisoners. Because of this, the mongols were able to stay in power for about 300 years. Many people believe that they mongols were more peaceful than they were barbaric because of how economically stable they were. However the mongols killed thousands and left millions terrified across Asia.

    Read More

  • Views of the Mongols DBQ

    681 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... were positive, one may argue that these individuals only saw the tolerant and fair-minded side of the Mongols, and not the relentless warrior part of the society who was known for its “dirty” tactics of war, which went as far as launching diseased-ridden corpses over the walls of castles during sieges. Alternatively, one may argue that the scholars who provided negative documentation of the Mongols only saw the destructive side, not the open-minded side of the society who were known for their cultural acceptance. Although these accounts allowed for an adequate idea of the nature of the Mongols, a record from a peasant who was not a member of the upper class in their society, as all reports presented were from historians, scholars, and political leaders. This would allow for a different perspective on the issue and would produce a better understanding of the topic.

    Read More

  • Einhard's Charlemagne and Ibn Battuta's Mansa Sultaiman

    1102 Words  | 3 Pages

    Einhard, in his account of Charlemagne, and Ibn Battuta, in his account of Mansa Sulaiman, give witness to the way these two kings ruled their lands and provide an insight on how culture has an effect on people’s views of their leaders. Although each one lived in different cultures, each ruler embodied similar characteristics, such as the influence of religion on their realms. However, there are several distinct differences as well, and each narrative contains cultural bias that cannot be ignored. Overall, each account thoroughly analyzes each ruler and infuses their observations with the culture of the time, which is integral in order to gain an accurate depiction of who these men were.

    Read More

  • Genghis Khan and the making of the Modern World

    1542 Words  | 4 Pages

    When the word “Mongol” is said I automatically think negative thoughts about uncultured, barbaric people who are horribly cruel and violent. That is only because I have only heard the word used to describe such a person. I have never really registered any initial information I have been taught about the subject pass the point of needing and having to know it. I felt quite incompetent on the subject and once I was given an assignment on the book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern Age, I was very perplexed for two reasons. One I have to read an outside book for a class that already requires a substantial amount of time reading the text, and secondly I have to write a research paper in History. I got over it and read the book, which surprisingly enough interested me a great deal and allow me to see the Moguls for more than just a barbaric group of Neanderthals, but rather a group of purpose driven warriors with a common goal of unity and progression. Jack Weatherford’s work has given me insight on and swayed my opinion of the Mongols.

    Read More

  • The Influence Of The Mongols On The World

    597 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Mongols were also known for their surprise attack which spread to other armies, making it a keen warfare used all around the world. This battle tactic consisted of a group of men who are fighting out on the battlefield and they begin to retreat only to draw the enemy into a trap. The enemy runs into a rain of arrows as the rest of the men are hiding off to the side with loaded weapons, and fierce ground fighters ready for combat. This is one key that the Mongols had to help them conquer Asia. Lastly, the Mongols had a positive impact on the world because they united most of Asia.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Genghis Khan

    854 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to one of the prosecuting attorneys, Genghis Khan killed an approximate “40 million people, about 10% of the world 's population at the time” during his reign over the Mongol Empire. As staggering as those numbers appear, there is substantial justification that is submitted by Genghis Khan himself, as well as the many other witnesses that defend and corroborate his account. Additionally, the amount of evidence presented by the defense is unparalleled to that of the prosecuting attorneys. The most convincing, compelling, and informative testimonies were delivered by Genghis Khan, the Mongol Government Official, the Merchant, and the Prince of Moscow. In contrast, there were a few notable testimonies from the witnesses that opposed Genghis Khan; those of Pope Innocent IV and Caliph of Baghdad. The others merely introduced minor arguments, repeated information, or unsubstantiated, inaccurate information that

    Read More

  • Mongol Empire Research Paper

    864 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Mongol Empire was a very powerful which conquered more land in two years than the Romans did in 400 years. Also, they controlled more than eleven million square miles. The Mongols were very important because they created nations like Russia and Korea, smashed the feudal system and created international law, and created the first free trade zone. In the beginning of the Mongol Empire, they mostly lived in foothills bordering the Siberian forests mixing heroing and hunting. They also became really good at archery and riding horses. The main reason the Mongols came to be so powerful was all because of a man named Genghis Kahn. Genghis was born around 1162 with the name Temujin. Due to the death of his father, Temujin was left under the control of his older brothers. Soon enough, he was married to a woman named Borte. Borte was later kidnapped, in which Temujin proved his military skills when saving her. Not to long after this, Temujin became the leader of his tribe. Yet, to unite the Mongol confederations it required a civil war, which Temijun ended up winning. After proving his skills and loyalty, Temijun was declared the Gr...

    Read More

  • Attila the Hun

    971 Words  | 2 Pages

    Attila and his brother succeeded their uncle as leaders of the Huns in 434, with Attila in the junior position until his brother’s death 12 years later. History has it that Attila killed him or hired someone to do the job. Attila embarked immediately upon a series of wars extending the Hun rule from the Rhine, across the north of the Black Sea as far as the Caspian Sea. From that base he soon began a long series of negotiations with the capital of the Roman Empire at Constantinople in the East and Ravenna in the West.

    Read More

  • Attila, King Of the Huns

    1328 Words  | 3 Pages

    Attila had a special relationship and a strong bond with his father, King Mundzuk, but that relationship was ended prematurely when his father died when Attila was a young boy. Attila’s uncle, Rugila, then took ov...

    Read More

  • Attila The Hun

    1361 Words  | 3 Pages

    No other real qualities of Attila as a general really survived through time, but he is thought to have been an outstanding commander from his accomplishments as a barbarian. Huns themselves were mysterious and feared people. They first appeared in the Fourth Century around the Roman Empire. They rode their warhorses around and cause the Germanic barbarians and Romans alike to fear them. Yet, it was said that they were very uncivilized. It was said that they made no use of fire, and just ate the roots of plants they found in fields.

    Read More

  • The Mongols

    985 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...tural diversity of societies and cultural diffusion promoted a stable economy from the successful trade and the new codes allowed for a prosperous time of religious tolerance and safety. It is crucial that the Mongols should be rightfully labeled as civilized because they did not match the idea of what barbarism is. Unlike popular belief, the Mongols did in fact have an enriched culture from trade and displayed a level of respect for one another through their codes of conduct. Also, although it may seem that the Mongols may not have any standard morals from their cruel battle tactics, they indeed did since they displayed that with their laws against theft and adultery. All this suggests that the Mongols were far from barbarians like what many from history claim and instead of wrecking havoc during that time, helped create a strong foundation of peace and stability.

    Read More

  • The Hun: The Rise And Fall Of Attila The Huns

    778 Words  | 2 Pages

    Attila the Hun, in his time, served as the leader of the Hunnic people known as the Huns. During his reign, beginning from 434-453 CE, he ruled over the Hunnic Empire and came to be one of the most well-known barbarians of his time. Throughout his lifetime, Attila faced a number of obstacles and feats that forged him into the vicious, murderous person he grew to be.

    Read More

  • How Did Attila Return To Power

    1561 Words  | 4 Pages

    Mundzak and his brother Ruga had begun terrorizing the Romans when Attila was still a child. After destroying many of their cities, the Romans began to pay tribute to the Huns and even struck a peace treaty with them. When Attila was only 12 years old, as part of the Roman peace treaty, he was sent to live with the Romans for 5 years. This gave Attila a unique perspective into the Roman Empire and he would later use this knowledge during his Roman conquests. In 433, Attila and his brother Bleda succeeded King Ruga and became the co-rulers of the Hunnish Kingdom. Although, Bleda was given the official title of King, it is commonly believed that they ruled

    Read More

  • The Art of War by Sun Tzu

    1020 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout history there have been many leaders who have succeeded and led their people to greatness, and countless others who have failed and brought ruin. A good leader must be courageous, wise, and able to react well to the difficult situations that they may face. One man who had all of these characteristics and more was Charlemagne, King of Frankia located in modern day France. Throughout his long life he united the Frankish kingdoms, saved the papacy from destruction, and fought off barbarians during a critical point in Europe’s history (Sullivan). In addition, he also went on to found two of the world’s most influential kingdoms in history, the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire (Knowles). Charlemagne the Great, as he was known in his home kingdom of Frankia, ultimately fit the mold and even exceeded the requirements for being a good leader set forth by Sun Tzu in his book: The Art of War. He endured many struggles, suffered demoralizing losses, and experienced the highest of victories throughout his storied reign as King of the Franks, Italy, and as the first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, all of which would last for centuries to come.

    Read More

More about Atilla the Hun and Genghiz Khan

Open Document