This is something i’ve though about for many years.
The Mongol Empire, the world largest contigous Empire is very often known for the levels of brutality and slaughter it brought to the world.
But upon look at it’s administration it actually seemed amazingly advanced at least by todays standards, they were religously tolerant they sported much of a meritocracy and women had a great many rites that they did not enjoy in other lands.
Yet it was the death and suffering they brought that is often remmebered and I believe this is rightly so, as I am not one of the adherants to the Idea that the ends justify the means especially when the means are so ghastily brutal.
Any cities that did not immediatly surrender were often completely wiped off the map.
Death not only from warfare but also many of the plauges that ravaged the world (Black Death, Bubonic Plauge) originated in th mongolian region.
But one thing I always thought was that the Mongol Empire is the supreme example of what someone who believe that the ends always justified the means would aspire too.
You haven’t explicitly said what the ends were, you’ve only specified the means. This sentence was the only thing I could find that might be the end you’re referring to:
“But upon look at it’s administration it actually seemed amazingly advanced at least by todays standards, they were religously tolerant they sported much of a meritocracy and women had a great many rites that they did not enjoy in other lands.”
I’m going to ask you to answer this straightforwardly and unambiguously: what is the end?
I’ll admit I’m no expert on the sunbject I suppose the end would be a peaceful society, absent of the constant Tribal wars, with Great amounts of personal freedom of the citizans, a very meritocratc system of governance with low rates of corruption.
But of Course the means they used to obtain this were very harsh and very cruel.
“peaceful” and “absent the constant tribal wars” doesn’t sound like what was accomplished to me. go to war and kill tens of thousands for peace? that doesn’t sound like it makes much sense.
I couldn’t comprehend living in a society as barbaric as that… but, then again… my ancestors were just as bad, albeit before my time - they offered their people total protection but it came at a high price for neighbouring tribes, or any tribe they could get their hands on for that matter.
In one respect I think they (and the Mongols… whom which they share the same bloodlines with) were bloody awesome, but is it the best way to survive? not for the Mongols it seemed…
Circa Genghis and Atilla… life was about conquering and dividing back then, so they were doing what came naturally to them, no? Obviously it wasn’t a long-term workable solution for their survival, so I’d put those eras down to an historical phase.
I thought the ends were simply to force everyone to make payments to them - tribute.
They didn’t conquer Europe though I think that was because they got secretly bribed, or because the forested lands weren’t conducive to horse-archer warfare [or both].
The empire was vast, though mostly the stepp which was sparsely populated and quite barren.
They were limited by their very nature, their level of technological sophistication couldn’t get past swords and armour. At least if it had done, they would have been reduced to musket warfare ~ reduced because it would have taken away their advantage. In the end it was that by which the Russians [and others] defeated them, and got themselves a rather large stretch of lands into the bargain.
They were doomed to being defeated by the future, and by a lack of direction beyond theft and destruction [ect].
Yeah I suppose the example is not great, perhaps it more supports my idea that the ends don’t always justify the means, because unjust means lead to unjust ends.
Also the Polish and Mamluk Sultanate did a Good deal of the fighting as well.
Perhaps the ends would have justified the means if they had ends? The romans were quite brutal but made the conquered into romans, so eventually it evened out somewhat.
If Genghis khan had conquered the whole world [or better Kubli khan as he didn’t hate farmers etc, if I remember correctly], it would have reduced all the tribal/cultural fighting and could have given people peace.
I think he could possibly have done that, but was more interested in what he and others in his hierarchy could get. Others didn’t have the same tribal ethics for a single leader too.
And thats one reason (among many) For why the Roman Empire lasted 500 or 1,500 years depending on what you consider Roman and what you consider an Empire.
Indeed. Ultimately doesn’t more intelligent means create the same in terms of ends?
Repression creates so much resentment, that the better [ethically] leader of any two would get more support?
Oldest problem since civilisation started probably, somewhat fleshed out the plato’s republic. Sometimes seems like we havent been able to think of much since ~ we still cant get past democracy.
Indeed, and most of them come down to very simple things most everyone would believe in. from there on it becomes a battle as to whom is the better debater ~ he/she’s the one who gets to rule us [though we never know who’s pulling their strings].
…but I agree that rules draw the lines which society needs to function.
I’d have a commercial and a separate ethical/philosophic govt, currently politicians have to weigh a balance of the two, it may create more accountability if they opposed one another?
Republic beats monarchy based systems for me. Monarchy is retarded, stupid people just get some kind of associative ego boost from it. They own too many resources, assets and lands, much of which they got by such defaulting to the crown over many centuries [inc often the real reason for witch burnings].
I tend to think that the whole thing could be replaced by people doing what they want + a suitable model to enable that. Fundamentally nothing can be ‘entirely’ owned but shared, otherwise we may get a guy who owns the world and tells us to get off his lands [says something about ownership eh!].
I don’t think the Mongols had a concept of a means to a end. They had strategic configurations, and a tactical conceptualization of their legal code. There was a case where I think it was 15 mongols were lost on building a military ridge across the river… the general was executed for it. My brigade lost 54 men- largest for any given our sister battalion was all noobs to the last man just out of basic training put in the middle of the triangle of death. That’s almost 4 executions for a failure in loosing precious manpower. Mongols had a understanding of the economy of preserving their own men, and their tactics were hit and run for a reason, there was never enough of them.
The mongols lasted much longer than 200 years. Google Akbar the Great. The Mongols broke up into several subfactions, as is common in nomadic empires over large expanses. It’s not a failure, it’s how it was meant to be.
The mongols were also the strongest Christian power during the middle ages, several mongolian princes converted over to Nestorian Christianity… Ghengis Khan’s mother was a christian, and they were known to spare christian communities whenever they entered into a territory (not always though… they were mongols after all).
Was it their ‘end’ to liberalize other peoples? Or did they have other motivations for their conquests?
If we are not talking about their intent, simply the results of their actions, how can we determine these? Who knows what the world would be like now if they had not done what they did? We could certainly speculate, but it would be guessing. Unless we are only looking at the very short term after they conquered. But is that wise?
Interesting info CN. I didn’t know Christianity was that big, later Mongols appear more Islamic, and e.g. Tibetans were Buddhist Mongols. Buddhism seemed more dominant in the far east like china after they conquered it [but that wasn’t Genghis].
Agreed men are a fundamental resource irrespective of numbers. Give the army boys top to toe carbonado [black diamond] armour I say. A lot of money spent on fewer men would be more effective imho.