More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of genghis khan on mongol empire
Genghis Khan's impact on the modern world
Genghis Khan's impact on the modern world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Imagine the skulls of your people littered on the ground of your town. There is only one man who could be this ruthless and that was Genghis Khan. The Mongolian of the Asian Steppe had a negative impact on the world during their rule of their Asian continent from 1260 and 1368 by influencing death, cruelty, and torture. I will show you the ways of Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan used psychological warfare and brought death to those villages and armies that opposed him. He was a cruel person to those who opposed him gave no mercy to those. Genghis used painful ways of torture and didn’t care about the outcome.
His methods of torture were brutal and to this day are considered ugly and disgusting. He tortured those who angered and opposed him, and seemed to take glee from the suffering and pain of the tortured. Document 5 shows us “the execution of a prisoner by a Mongol soldier. Others are being buried upside-down.” That shows what a vicious person he really was and that he ruled with an iron fist. Document 10 states “Whosoever commits adultery will be executed, whether or not they have previous convictions.” This shows again how brutal he is
…show more content…
with anything that comes in his way. Genghis Khan was a savage ruler when it came to torture and execution, furthering his negative impact on the world. He was a cruel man who when he wanted something done, he got it done.
He didn’t care who it affected, he always got his way. Document 10 says, “If an Unbeliever (i.e. a Mongol) desires a married woman he will kill the husband and then have relations with that woman.” That quote shows that he got his way, not matter the laws that may be in place against it. Even in his army, Genghis was cruel towards the men and gave them strict rules to follow by. Document 2 states “When they are in battle, if one or two or three or even more out of a group of ten run away, all are put to death.” That means that if even only one soldier flees from a company of 10 mongols, all 10 will die, and that shows how little Genghis cares about the lives of his soldiers. He was a cruel man who got his way no matter the opposition and stopped at nothing to do
so. And so, stated above these things prove that Genghis Khan had a negative impact. These Mongolians from the Asian Steppe provided the world with a negative impact from 1260 and 1368 by influencing death, cruelty, and torture. Genghis Khan used psychological warfare and brought death to those villages and armies that opposed him. He was a cruel person to those who opposed him gave no mercy to those. Even more, he used painful ways of torture and didn’t care about the outcome. Those show why the Mongols had a negative impact on the world.
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...
When attacking cities, the mongols often had their prisoners go first, creating a bigger target for them. Also, prisoners were often put to work where they received bone breaking work and brutal beatings. In many cases, the mongols would often bury their prisoners alive head first, or shoot and kill them with a bow and arrow from extremely close range. Sometimes, they would use these punishment as warnings for rivalry tribes, showing them the this is what we do. In the end, they mongols were extremely barbaric with the punishments their prisoners received.
Despite the fact that Mongolians were prejudiced against other cultures, they were, in fact, not barbaric but rather civilized because of their gender equality of people and how advanced their cities were. In The Book of Ser Marco Polo, Polo tells us how beautiful and well protected the city was like. For instance, the text explains how the city was protected by two great powerful walls surrounding the entire city. Only well advanced and civilized people can do such a thing such as creating an enormous wall. If the Mongolians were barbaric they wouldn’t have even thought of protection.. In Addition, the way the city looked also proved that they were civilized and not barbaric.
... 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.
The Mongols believed a conquered city should be able to be plowed upon; and that not even cats and dogs should be left alive (DOC E). Once the Mongols conquered new land, with the exception of those they wished to have as slaves or artisans who could contribute to society, they murdered with an axe (DOC D). Their killing was so severe, sometimes, the Mongols ended up killing whole cities, most histories estimate the number they killed to be in the millions (Green). By being this ruthless, the societies around the Mongols would hear of the Mongols treatment of prisons and often surrendered the second the Mongols arrived, just to escape slaughter (Green). Being ruthless also meant the Mongol army had nothing stopping them from doing exactly what they wanted because they didn’t care at all about sacrificing enemy casualties and huge groups of people dying.
Mongol empire was the largest land empire of the world has ever seen. First began as a nomadic group of tribes. Mongols were united and emerged into an empire that conquered lands stretching from Europe to Central Asia under the rule of Genghis Khan. The Mongol empire was able to succeed in expanding, and conquering was due to their ability to adapt to any living conditions, their sheer brutality force, and their strong military organization.
The Mongols were barbaric because of their cruelty. In document 4 it states, “They then drove all the survivors, men and women, out onto the plain; and… it was commanded that the town should be laid waste in such a manner that the site could be ploughed upon; and that … not even cats and dogs should be left alone” (Document C). This document shows they would kill everything that
Compare these Mongol laws to current times in America or Europe. People are worried at night because of safety and not only lock their houses but get extensive security systems and other protections against people doing them harm. If we, in the United States or in Europe, are not barbaric yet do not feel the same kind of safety as the Mongol people felt, how are the Mongols barbaric. Along with these strict laws, the Mongols also showed strict morals with respect for each other, not get drunk often; but the Mongols were still very socially open to and enjoyed drinking in consideration. These morals have been around since Jesus’ time and He used them in his teachings, so if Jesus preached these morals and he the most perfect man accept them, how can the Mongols be seen as barbaric? Another thing that the Mongols did that showed their intelligence and civilizedness is their extensive post stations. These stations held fresh horses used for messengers to help them reach their destination much quicker. These stations were placed strategically along the road usually 25 miles
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?
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.
They struck fear into their enemies eyes with their gruesome affect and fierce actions. They showed no mercy. 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
The military exploits of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan as well as other leaders and the ruthless brutality that characterized the Mongol conquests have survived in legend. The impact of the invasions can be traced through history from the different policies set forth to the contributions the Mongols gave the world. The idea of the ruthless barbarian’s intent upon world domination will always be a way to signify the Mongols. Living steadfast upon the barren steppe they rode out of Mongolia to pursue a better life for their people.
Genghis Khan, as it is well-acknowledged, is renowned for governing the extensively immense Mongol Empire. Despite the common argument that he indiscriminately (done at random or without careful judgement―by definition) slaughtered millions of people, Genghis Khan aspired to conquer new territories and, in accordance to their religion, animism, “the sky god made it their goal to unite the land under one sword.” How else would he have done the preceding? Just as the Mongol Government Official stated, “war is inevitable,” especially when capitulation is refused. Moreover, Genghis Khan noted that peace usually follows surrender. Though Prince Kiev attempted to confute the aforementioned, he was mistaken when he said that “war sparked between the two peoples” as a result of an attempt at peace. In response, Genghis Khan’s negation included that war arose as a consequence of their mistrust of him and the denial of a viable peace
Though the Mongols were brutal in their campaign to conquer, the conquests of Timur-i Lang were extremely harsh, much more so than that of the Mongols. He is heralded as one of the toughest rulers of the time, and he expanded the empire through harsh measures. Rather than the Mongols, who post-conquest were somewhat peaceful, Timur-i Lang was harmful to those he conquered in Asia. He slaughtered villages and burned them down. Most likely because of his rule and the vastness of the area he ruled, the Mongol empire was not united and failed to garner any big trading network that it previously had. Overall, Timur-i Lang was much more brutal than the rule of any other Mongol Khan, especially during the conquests and after the conquests. His zeal to get more land prevented any conquered peoples to live peacefully under his leadership.
The mongols are probably the worst people ever! I can tell you why with some evidence from document e. Document e paragraph 1 states that the Mongols massacred thousands if not millions! Thats a lot of people. They even might of made pyramids of skulls of the people's bones they massacred. Mongols had a special cry before they attacked they cry was "feed the horses" which in their terms ment rape, murder, and plunder against defenseless people. When the Mongols went to a plunder a city/cities they would terrorize the populations, killing soldiers, and civilians, and seizing territory. The Mongols when