Temujin's Empire

http://www.lacma.org/khan/images/mongolmap.jpg



I would love to talk indepth about the Mongol Empire and people such as Batu Khan, Chingus Khan, Ogedai Khan, Mongke Khan, etc. That stuff fascinates me, I'm in College right now taking Museum Studies and going to University afterwards to study History of the Ancient World and History of 1000-1750's. (Which includes the Mongols Empire). I'm also taking English classes which is my minors for Museum Studies, in about a year or so I plan on writing a book on Genghis Khan. . . I'm tired of talking to people about it who have no idea whatsoever about those times in history. Mainly people on WarCraft 3 and Counter-Strike and stuff, clan members usually. On here though, I can see alot of you knowing about this stuff since we share the same interests (Ancient-Modern Civilizations).

Now I don't really want to see wikipedia url's for this stuff, I read more about this then those sites can produce, including .edu's :P. Also, if any1 is interested in this sort of stuff, a few years ago in Highschool I read a 35-page article in the National Geographics about Genghis Khan, which was what made me even more interested in this sort of stuff.

Anyways, I want to see what you all think of Genghis Khan and if you'd like to point out some key facts about him (working on roughnotes for a book). So far I've got ideas for his battles against the Jin Empire of Northern China, the invasion into Europe and his Invasion into the Middle-East, plenty more but I would like additional feedback and help from you guys as well. . . Even my professors that teach history know little about this... Amateurs, j/p :P.

So what you guys think about Genghis Khan?

So what you guys think about Genghis Khan?

Eh...he's okay, I suppose. I'm not sure I'd invite him to dinner, though.

:p

He is a freaking murder. About as bad as Hitler.

He is a freaking murder. About as bad as Hitler.

And pray tell what information that opinion derives from?

He was a product of his times/culture....Hitler on the other hand was a twisted, tortured, hateful little man with a knack for public speaking.In no way was he a product of his culture or times.

He is a freaking murder. About as bad as Hitler.

Not during his time, this was common, plus whom the hell do you think he learned proper manners of war from? Oh wait, his country was in shambles before he united it. Heathen, barbarous tribes roamed their land.

He was a product of his times/culture....Hitler on the other hand was a twisted, tortured, hateful little man with a knack for public speaking.In no way was he a product of his culture or times.

Agreed, Genghis's time was 1157-1227, a time when there were no rules of wars in place. Hell, who could have enforced them anyways? Everybody was afraid of him, not to mention he died when his empire was still at it's prime (and was for a long time after his death).

Estimates place the number of dead caused by the Mongol invasion at about 30 million. Whatever the time period, that's a pretty bad stain on one's record.

Except he was a pretty fair ruler who created an empire that encouraged trade, freedom of religion and "Pax mongolia" (like Pax Romana).

My favorite story (I say it's about his fairness cause fairness goes both way, but many people would probaby see it as how cold he is) about Genghis Khan (Tchinggis or however you wanna spell it) is that 2 came to him with the head of their leader (from Khwarezm, Persia or whatever, I forget).

Genghis was happy because the leader of his current enemy was dead. And he got those 2 guys executed, because he can't have traitors working for him. Now THAT's fair lol

One the of the greatest conquerer, if not the greatest.

Movies, I mean serial drama were made from Hong Kong and China about him. He was being portrayed as a great leader.

Except he was a pretty fair ruler who created an empire that encouraged trade, freedom of religion and "Pax mongolia" (like Pax Romana).

My favorite story (I say it's about his fairness cause fairness goes both way, but many people would probaby see it as how cold he is) about Genghis Khan (Tchinggis or however you wanna spell it) is that 2 came to him with the head of their leader (from Khwarezm, Persia or whatever, I forget).

Genghis was happy because the leader of his current enemy was dead. And he got those 2 guys executed, because he can't have traitors working for him. Now THAT's fair lol

That was a good story, your correct, it was the Kwarazmian Empire. The Mongols did conquer them after defeating the Jin Empire of Northern China.

His tactics may have been brutal, but don't forget, the opposing leaders handed over the lives of their civilians when they desecreted Ambassadors and unarmed caravans. But the civilians were never completely innocent, they also denied and were just as bold as the leaders and soldiers. After the fall of Jin, the rest should have taken a hint.

He dealth with the bold, cocky leaders accordingly, 1 cocky prince of the Jin Empire, as I described before, slaughtered a peaceful, unarmed caravan and the ambassador whom had led it. This was an utter form of disrespect towards Chingus(politically correct as you descibed before) Khan, whom was outnumbered about 5-1 and sat on a box and dined with the leaders suffocating underneath. He received tribute from remaining outposts, and move on West.

Estimates place the number of dead caused by the Mongol invasion at about 30 million. Whatever the time period, that's a pretty bad stain on one's record.

They brought this upon themselves by A. Not paying tribute, and B. Desecreting Caravans, the citizens of the conquered empires were 100% supportive and did not disagree with war, they thought Temujin was merely another barbarian leader, damn were they proven wrong. :D

EDIT: Oh and by the way, those who paid tribute to Temujin's Empire were spared.

Estimates place the number of dead caused by the Mongol invasion at about 30 million. Whatever the time period, that's a pretty bad stain on one's record.

There again it wasn't done in cold blood. I don't recall reading about him wishing to create a purebred Mongol..and ordering all inferior types to be rounded up like cattle..then led away to be slaughtered.
And if you actually study the land area they spread across and the timeframe...its put into context a little.

And finally ,for me at least, they(Mongols) were not doing it in the name of GOD(any god)...that is refreshing.

(Apologies to any religiously orientated folks out there..but a war or conquest that was perpertrated by someone without "God on our side" IS refreshing)

There again it wasn't done in cold blood. I don't recall reading about him wishing to create a purebred Mongol..and ordering all inferior types to be rounded up like cattle..then led away to be slaughtered.
And if you actually study the land area they spread across and the timeframe...its put into context a little.

And finally ,for me at least, they(Mongols) were not doing it in the name of GOD(any god)...that is refreshing.

(Apologies to any religiously orientated folks out there..but a war or conquest that was perpertrated by someone without "God on our side" IS refreshing)

As well, if the people are dedicated 100% to their conquered leaders, uprising isn't a maybe. 1 Million people. . . 10,000 Mongol Soldiers left to quell uprisings. . . If they(the civilians) believe in the name of god(or gods) that it is their land, they would give their lives dearly for liberation.

Genghis Khan did what he had to do to get the job done, he didn't slaughter these people out of hate at all, he gave them a chance to pay tribute, they denied, they suffer the consequences, plain and simple.

Estimates place the number of dead caused by the Mongol invasion at about 30 million. Whatever the time period, that's a pretty bad stain on one's record.

Just bringing one number out does not mean anything.
Consider:
-the timespan of Mongol invasion, 2/3 generations ?
-the land that they have conquered, how many square feet or miles?
-the lives that they have spared

And now look back at the number that u provide , 30 million death u said for the above achievment.. thats a bargain


Genghis Khan the :king:

OMG listen to u guys. 30 million is nothing for what he did? A great leader spares ppl and still manages to conquer territories. I have read that the guy wasn't a happy one (bad childhood or something). He killed and pillaged. Lol no matter what period in time u live in a kill is a kill just because there is no one to enforce doesn't mean its justified. I read a qote somewhere that says that something like "I will kill your husband and enslave your woman (or something like that)".

I'm sorry my story is a bit sketchy, but IIRC Khan was approaching Italy or Rome itself, and some saint, or maybe it was the Pope at the time, met him. Supposedly Khan decided not to attack, because he saw an army of angels with drawn swords behind whoever that person was. I wish I could recall where I read about that. I'm not sure if anyone but Khan was aware of those angels.

I'm sorry my story is a bit sketchy, but IIRC Khan was approaching Italy or Rome itself, and some saint, or maybe it was the Pope at the time, met him. Supposedly Khan decided not to attack, because he saw an army of angels with drawn swords behind whoever that person was. I wish I could recall where I read about that. I'm not sure if anyone but Khan was aware of those angels.

Being pagan barbarians for the longest time, I highly doubt they'd be afraid of angels after conquering the world to the point of Italy... The world was in their grasp, the only reason the Empire didn't take over the world was because King Mongke died at the Empire's height and civil war was about to break out (In the original Mongolia) so they had to pull out. Hell, we could all be Mongolian by now had this not happened... Think about it. They had Chinese, Europians and Middle Eastern soldiers fighting for them in exchange for their lives. You think Britain or France would have stopped them?

Oh and Robin Hood embarasses the very pathetic and mediocre England :). In their own war with the Scots, there's no way they'd be invulnerable to an invasion from the mighty Monguls, the French would be slaughtered, who did they have to help them? The Welsh? With a war of it's own going on, they couldn't have concentrated on the Mongols whom conquered the known World. If you think about it for a good minute, those who say "Had they brought it to England and France, we would so pwned them!". I don't thinkso. And judging by egos, I can tell you that France and England would never in the lifetime of any king bow down before such a foreign leader, one of whom they have probably never faced on the battlefield and had no respect for. They would have been slaughtered. Had this happened. . . The New World (Europian Settlers into the Americas) would have probably never happened under the Mongul Khans. I don't know if you guys think about this that much, but it could have happened. The Mongols were just beginning their invasion into Africa and Western Europe (Including England/France/Spain/Italy/Germany, etc). As I recall, the 150,000 Teutonic Knights were from Western Europe and they got slaughtered like meat in a grinder against Mongol Cavalry, which at the time, Knights and Heavy Cavalry was what alot of Western Europian Civilizations prided themselves, sit down bow to the New King :). Now I shall share my idea. . . You know how you see movies on Alexander, Troy, New World, WW2, American Revolution, Roman Empire, Samurais, etc. Tell me, when was the last Genghis Khan movie created? 1992? It was shot in 1992, released in 2004, patheticly and poorly put to done, if I were a critic, I'd write "Simply Mediocre & Pathetic". We need a brand new Genghis Khan title out, one of the most remarkable war heroes and leaders the world has ever known, yet he isn't as respected as he should be, for conquering Medieval Era/

Follow the instructions
http://www.timeref.org/ - (on the lefthand side, Click on 1000-1199, under Key Dates heading. Scroll to the 1150's.

1154 Henry II (Plantagenet) m. Eleanor of Aquitaine Ripon Minster, 1154-81
1162 Becket, Archbishop
1170 Murder of Becket Jervaulx Abbey
1187 Saladin takes Jerusalem (Congrads Saladin! You still lose your empire to the Mongolians! Good for you! Siege of Jerusalem against peasant farmers!)


What was left out?. . .
(For certain)1155-1167 Temujin of Mongolia was born. (Civ4 says 1152...Get the right time period atleast :\ correct.)
1185, Temujin becomes Khan of his clan.
1206, Temujin becomes Genghis Khan.
1206, Temujin is chosen as leader of Mongols.
1207, Genghis Khan begins war against China.
1211, Genghis Khan invades the mighty Chin Empire.
1215, Genghis destroys Zhongdu (Beijing).
1218, Insults draw Genghis Westward (Probably the biggest mistake of the Medieval Era :\) LoL.
1218-1219, Shah Mohammad attacks a Mongol Caravan.
1219, Shah Mohammad defeated.
1219, Genghis Khan declares war.
1220, Genghis takes Samarkand and Bukhara (Good job with the insults you imbeciles, rot in hell.)
1221, Hunt for Shah Mohammad
1221, Death of Shah Mohammad. (Good, coward?)
1222, Genghis Khan searches for Immortality, well as if he needed more. :)
1226, Genghis Khan wages his last campaign.
1227, Genghis Khan dies.
1227 Genghis Khan's son Og”dei was chosen by Mongol clan leaders to become the new khan
1235, The second wave of Mongol conquest began in 1235 under Genghis Khan's son Og”dei (ruled 1227-1241).

1237-1240, Genghis Khan's grandson Batu and another general named Subotai led armies to the west which conquered Russia and established the Khanate of the Golden Horde (And so it begins).

1241, A Mongol army under Batu continued into Hungary and forced King Bela IV to flee to the Adriatic Sea. However, Batu's army withdrew from Europe in 1241 when Og”dei died, and Batu returned to join the other khans in the selection of a new supreme ruler.

1244, A Mongol army led by Subotai conquered Anatolia in 1244 and linked up with Crusader king of Constantinople.

1251, The sons of Tuli (another son of Genghis Khan) took control of Mongol succession.

1251-1259, Mangu (Hulagu) Khan (1217- r1251-1259) took Persia, Syria and Mesopotamia.

1258, The Mongols under Mangu sacked the Muslim Seljuk capital at Baghdad and executed the caliph.

Just a little incite into their history.

KingKHAN---I'm utterly, totally, completely with you on the Greatest Conqueror the World Has Ever Known.

For all the whiny little brats above crying and lamenting the deaths of those at Mongol hands, two things:

1. Your crying is why we kill in the first place ( ;) )
2. You can't make an omelette without eating a few eggs :crazyeye:

Just bringing one number out does not mean anything.
Consider:
-the timespan of Mongol invasion, 2/3 generations ?
-the land that they have conquered, how many square feet or miles?
-the lives that they have spared

And now look back at the number that u provide , 30 million death u said for the above achievment.. thats a bargain


Genghis Khan the :king:

True, they conquered from the tips of the Pacific Ocean to Africa/Western Europian borders, I'm not quite sure exactly the total distance of that, but any1 who reads this, the map is in the first post.

That's farther than Alexander and the Romans conquered.

Don't forget, these times weren't as civilized just quite yet, many of whom they conquered were cocky and arrogant as I've been stressing often, they dont want to be made fools of, and want to set examples. If 1 empire sees what they do to another, they should A. Take a hint and submit or B. Become cocky, ignorant and wait out the inevitable defeat of their empires, and for what? To prove that for a small period of time they have balls? When their cities fall, they pick up and run, leaving behind their crumbling civilization as well as the civilians whom pledged themselves to their cause? It was the Medival Era, a dark time, and certainly no time to gamble with your empires fate, *cough, China, Kwarazmians, Muslims, Europians!*.

Great info on Genghis. He is one of my favorites. Most of what I know about him is from Civilopedia and my History Atlas though (great maps).

It seems incredible when I read at what age Mongol boys were taught to ride a horse and shoot a bow. :)

I love this era in history too. This is in the wrong forum - you should have posted this thread in World History :D

One thing people tend to forget is that the Great Khans were actually friends with the several European monarchs and popes (not personally). French kings such as Philip II Augustus actually had foreigners who slandered the Mongols put to death. They also tried to forge an alliance with the European states against the Muslim world. This puts things into perspective a bit. It was only later that the Mongols became unpopular and "evil" in Europe, mainly through the propaganda of Muslim Mediterranean traders.

I love this era in history too. This is in the wrong forum - you should have posted this thread in World History :D

One thing people tend to forget is that the Great Khans were actually friends with the several European monarchs and popes (not personally). French kings such as Philip II Augustus actually had foreigners who slandered the Mongols put to death. They also tried to forge an alliance with the European states against the Muslim world. This puts things into perspective a bit. It was only later that the Mongols became unpopular and "evil" in Europe, mainly through the propaganda of Muslim Mediterranean traders.

I agree with you 100%, the Mongols also befriended Taoist Monks. Genghis Khan had good relations with Shamans and Monks,

1215, Yeh-lu Chu'tsai (a shaman) joins Genghis Khan
1222, Taoist Monk Changchun visits Genghis Khan

Plenty of other Religious peoples also befriend Genghis Khan.

It seems incredible when I read at what age Mongol boys were taught to ride a horse and shoot a bow. :)

Agreed. They were quite skilled in their Archery on their Horses, that's one of the reasons they were so deadly, this had been rarely attempted in those times (and the ancient times before it). Nobody was really ready for that, the typical army formation (Including the Egyptians at the height of their empire(one of the longest empires to conquer) and the Roman Empire even, their typical formation was Archers at the rear and Cavalry/Infantry in the front and we all know this does make total sense also, to defend the archers. But when the archers are on horses leading the charge? This caught many many civilizations off-guard. The only others I believe in history to do such a thing were the Aboriginal Native Americans, they were also skilled horse archers. They rode a horse upside down(from the bottom of it, and still use precision archery techniques). It is amazing how deadly this form of fighting can be.

Edit: as well, the archery techniques of the Mongols is still practiced in the culture of Mongolia today.

Plenty of other Religious peoples also befriend Genghis Khan.On pain of death ;)

On pain of death ;)

Yeah thats true to, who'd really want to be on the opposite side of the field from the Mongols? Lol. No offense to anybody whom is really religious but, many of the civilizations conquered did infact worship a God(or gods). Yet, their God(s) really never did fight for them did they? They never struck them dead on the invasion into their land? I wouldn't want to die thinking that the Gods will fight the battles for you, when in actuality, many were proven wrong in this endeavor.

The thing about the Mongols is that, not having a written language or other amenities of "civilization," they "stole" the administrative knowledge and inspirational religious qualities from their conquered civs... keeping the mass of the people calm and happy...the survivors at any rate ;)

Yep, they were smart. Keeping culture up for their subjects, less uprisings, more praisings :)

They brought this upon themselves by A. Not paying tribute, and B. Desecreting Caravans, the citizens of the conquered empires were 100% supportive and did not disagree with war, they thought Temujin was merely another barbarian leader, damn were they proven wrong. :D

EDIT: Oh and by the way, those who paid tribute to Temujin's Empire were spared.
You think someone not paying you is a good reason to kill them? I hate to wonder what kind of job you have.

There again it wasn't done in cold blood. I don't recall reading about him wishing to create a purebred Mongol..and ordering all inferior types to be rounded up like cattle..then led away to be slaughtered.
And if you actually study the land area they spread across and the timeframe...its put into context a little.
Yeah, so people killed each other a lot back then. Doesn't make it any better, particularly when you are one of the greatest killers of all time. 30 million people back then was an extremely high percentage of the world's entire population.
Just bringing one number out does not mean anything.
Consider:
-the timespan of Mongol invasion, 2/3 generations ?
-the land that they have conquered, how many square feet or miles?
-the lives that they have spared

And now look back at the number that u provide , 30 million death u said for the above achievment.. thats a bargain

Genghis Khan the :king:
As I said, calling 30 million deaths a 'bargain' is a bit silly, particularly when the world's total population was less than 500 million. That's in the neighborhood of 10% of the world's population. That would be about 650 million people killed today.

Temujin conquered because A) he was good at it and B) Mongol culture demanded it. The history of their people was filled with raiding and conquering one's (ethnically identical) neighbors - when he united the Mongol tribes they need to look elsewhere. His actions were necessary for Temujin to keep power, as political rule was determined by who was most successful on the battlefield. Call Temujin a great conqueror and a powerful leader, but do not belittle the devastation the Mongol invasions brought about across Asia.

Belittle it? We're celebrating it! :beer:

Check this out. Click here. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2532/page9.html) This page is not the main page but at the top of the page are links to the rest of the site.
I hapen to know som about the mongols and although they did kill oh a few million people they greatly benifited the world.

I'm sorry my story is a bit sketchy, but IIRC Khan was approaching Italy or Rome itself, and some saint, or maybe it was the Pope at the time, met him. Supposedly Khan decided not to attack, because he saw an army of angels with drawn swords behind whoever that person was. I wish I could recall where I read about that. I'm not sure if anyone but Khan was aware of those angels.

That was Pope Leo I, and Atilla the Hun in 452. Same culture, just 600 or so years too early.

As I said, calling 30 million deaths a 'bargain' is a bit silly, particularly when the world's total population was less than 500 million. That's in the neighborhood of 10% of the world's population. That would be about 650 million people killed today.

Temujin conquered because A) he was good at it and B) Mongol culture demanded it. The history of their people was filled with raiding and conquering one's (ethnically identical) neighbors - when he united the Mongol tribes they need to look elsewhere. His actions were necessary for Temujin to keep power, as political rule was determined by who was most successful on the battlefield. Call Temujin a great conqueror and a powerful leader, but do not belittle the devastation the Mongol invasions brought about across Asia.

No one's denying that Temujin killed a lot of people. But the argument is that his killings were culturally appropriate for warfare of the time - it was just what conquerers did. Temujin conquered more land than any other conquerer, and so his death toll was accordingly higher. To compare him with Hitler, whose killings were irrational, hate-based, and not committed during war, does him a disservice. Temujin never rounded up his own people and put him to death, nor did he round up people and have them killed just because they're of a certain race. Was he a killer? Yes. So were 90% of world leaders of his time - war was unavoidable. He just differed in scale. Hitler was a completely different situation.

Hell, we could all be Mongolian by now had this not happened... Think about it. They had Chinese, Europians and Middle Eastern soldiers fighting for them in exchange for their lives. You think Britain or France would have stopped them?
Possibly. The Japanese did, after all (twice.)

Eh, they had the weather help ;)

OMG listen to u guys. 30 million is nothing for what he did? A great leader spares ppl and still manages to conquer territories. I have read that the guy wasn't a happy one (bad childhood or something). He killed and pillaged. Lol no matter what period in time u live in a kill is a kill just because there is no one to enforce doesn't mean its justified. I read a qote somewhere that says that something like "I will kill your husband and enslave your woman (or something like that)".

I agree. This stuff in this thread is preposterous hero worship. The guy killed what, 12 million in China in a year's time? 30 million is no big deal? Gimme a break. Realize too that at the time he did that, it was effectively exponentially a larger number of people. Madrid only had about 50,000 people in it when Columbus discovered America. Now you have cities with ten million in them. When we think of 30 million now, the number should stagger us. But back then, it was fantastical. And they didn't do it with machine guns either, but up close and personal.

Genghis Khan would march his armies to cities and say surrender immediately or you'll all die. Of course, the average citizen back then had no more say what his government decided than he ever has; far less really, because democracy was even less pertinent and available than now. So whole cities got murdered after being presented with a frankly preposterous ultimatum, probably actually deliberated on by but a few people. If someone ran up out of nowhere and told you to give up everything you own and your family to slavery, or die, how reasonable would you find it?

The idea that all the people he murdered brought it on themselves is asinine.

The ideas that everyone conducted war just as he did, or that he can't be judged, are false and absurd.

People, and especially kids, need better heroes these days. And a whole lot more perspective.

Waaaahhhhnnnnnnn!
You can't argue with success. :p

Possibly. The Japanese did, after all (twice.)

They also hid on an island :). The Mongol's weren't known for a powerful navy, but for their Cavalry.

I agree. This stuff in this thread is preposterous hero worship. The guy killed what, 12 million in China in a year's time? 30 million is no big deal? Gimme a break. Realize too that at the time he did that, it was effectively exponentially a larger number of people. Madrid only had about 50,000 people in it when Columbus discovered America. Now you have cities with ten million in them. When we think of 30 million now, the number should stagger us. But back then, it was fantastical. And they didn't do it with machine guns either, but up close and personal.

Genghis Khan would march his armies to cities and say surrender immediately or you'll all die. Of course, the average citizen back then had no more say what his government decided than he ever has; far less really, because democracy was even less pertinent and available than now. So whole cities got murdered after being presented with a frankly preposterous ultimatum, probably actually deliberated on by but a few people. If someone ran up out of nowhere and told you to give up everything you own and your family to slavery, or die, how reasonable would you find it?

The idea that all the people he murdered brought it on themselves is asinine.

The ideas that everyone conducted war just as he did, or that he can't be judged, are false and absurd.

People, and especially kids, need better heroes these days. And a whole lot more perspective.

Wow you really didn't do your homework did you? I've said it before, I'll say it again, he sent ambassadors LONG before he approached cities, he gave fair warning, it was the government(of that nations) choice to sever the head of the ambassador and return them to Mongolia with the highest of disrespect, that is what angered them, they didn't even have the courtesy to just say no, they had to slaughter the ambassador and his caravan, then send them back, that right there is a call for war, what did the civilians do? They didn't disagree or uprise against the government, now to me that seems like they back their own nation, making them part of the desecrating, making them just as responsible for the consequence. They never came to a city and demanded tribute just like that, they sent ambassadors you fool.

I don't consider anything the Mongols did as truly "Mongolian" after the death of Temujin :king:

I still had respect for the predecessors of Temujin, Og''dai, Batu and Mongke were good rulers.

Feh, they were dogs! There progeny were barely fit to follow the great Khan on the field of battle! (better than non-Mongols, of course)

If he was born in 1980 and just started his conquest for world domination right now, he would be considered as bad as Hitler. But in the 1100's and 1200's...well..yeah. He was one of the few leaders from before the Protestant reformation to allow religious freedom in his empire. And most of his enemys were mostly barbarians and etc that deserved the fate.

Genghis Khan was a great conqueror. He built the largest coninginous land Empire ever. His Empire streached from Germany, Polnd, and Hungary all the way across Central Asia, Persia, Middle East, China,....
Mongol armies were practially undefeatable on the land.

Eh, they had the weather help ;)
Heh, that's true... though I think that modern historians believe that the role of the kamikaze in stopping the invasions has been exaggerated over the centuries.

They also hid on an island :).
And what is Britain? :D

Heh, that's true... though I think that modern historians believe that the role of the kamikaze in stopping the invasions has been exaggerated over the centuries.
"modern historians" didn't have to face down the Mongol hordes.... too bad :lol:

Being pagan barbarians for the longest time, I highly doubt they'd be afraid of angels after conquering the world to the point of Italy... The world was in their grasp, the only reason the Empire didn't take over the world was because King Mongke died at the Empire's height and civil war was about to break out (In the original Mongolia) so they had to pull out. Hell, we could all be Mongolian by now had this not happened... Think about it. They had Chinese, Europians and Middle Eastern soldiers fighting for them in exchange for their lives. You think Britain or France would have stopped them?

Oh and Robin Hood embarasses the very pathetic and mediocre England :). In their own war with the Scots, there's no way they'd be invulnerable to an invasion from the mighty Monguls, the French would be slaughtered, who did they have to help them? The Welsh? With a war of it's own going on, they couldn't have concentrated on the Mongols whom conquered the known World. If you think about it for a good minute, those who say "Had they brought it to England and France, we would so pwned them!". I don't thinkso. And judging by egos, I can tell you that France and England would never in the lifetime of any king bow down before such a foreign leader, one of whom they have probably never faced on the battlefield and had no respect for. They would have been slaughtered. Had this happened. . . The New World (Europian Settlers into the Americas) would have probably never happened under the Mongul Khans. I don't know if you guys think about this that much, but it could have happened. The Mongols were just beginning their invasion into Africa and Western Europe (Including England/France/Spain/Italy/Germany, etc). As I recall, the 150,000 Teutonic Knights were from Western Europe and they got slaughtered like meat in a grinder against Mongol Cavalry, which at the time, Knights and Heavy Cavalry was what alot of Western Europian Civilizations prided themselves, sit down bow to the New King :). Now I shall share my idea. . . You know how you see movies on Alexander, Troy, New World, WW2, American Revolution, Roman Empire, Samurais, etc. Tell me, when was the last Genghis Khan movie created? 1992? It was shot in 1992, released in 2004, patheticly and poorly put to done, if I were a critic, I'd write "Simply Mediocre & Pathetic". We need a brand new Genghis Khan title out, one of the most remarkable war heroes and leaders the world has ever known, yet he isn't as respected as he should be, for conquering Medieval Era/

Follow the instructions
http://www.timeref.org/ - (on the lefthand side, Click on 1000-1199, under Key Dates heading. Scroll to the 1150's.

1154 Henry II (Plantagenet) m. Eleanor of Aquitaine Ripon Minster, 1154-81
1162 Becket, Archbishop
1170 Murder of Becket Jervaulx Abbey
1187 Saladin takes Jerusalem (Congrads Saladin! You still lose your empire to the Mongolians! Good for you! Siege of Jerusalem against peasant farmers!)


What was left out?. . .
(For certain)1155-1167 Temujin of Mongolia was born. (Civ4 says 1152...Get the right time period atleast :\ correct.)
1185, Temujin becomes Khan of his clan.
1206, Temujin becomes Genghis Khan.
1206, Temujin is chosen as leader of Mongols.
1207, Genghis Khan begins war against China.
1211, Genghis Khan invades the mighty Chin Empire.
1215, Genghis destroys Zhongdu (Beijing).
1218, Insults draw Genghis Westward (Probably the biggest mistake of the Medieval Era :\) LoL.
1218-1219, Shah Mohammad attacks a Mongol Caravan.
1219, Shah Mohammad defeated.
1219, Genghis Khan declares war.
1220, Genghis takes Samarkand and Bukhara (Good job with the insults you imbeciles, rot in hell.)
1221, Hunt for Shah Mohammad
1221, Death of Shah Mohammad. (Good, coward?)
1222, Genghis Khan searches for Immortality, well as if he needed more. :)
1226, Genghis Khan wages his last campaign.
1227, Genghis Khan dies.
1227 Genghis Khan's son Og”dei was chosen by Mongol clan leaders to become the new khan
1235, The second wave of Mongol conquest began in 1235 under Genghis Khan's son Og”dei (ruled 1227-1241).

1237-1240, Genghis Khan's grandson Batu and another general named Subotai led armies to the west which conquered Russia and established the Khanate of the Golden Horde (And so it begins).

1241, A Mongol army under Batu continued into Hungary and forced King Bela IV to flee to the Adriatic Sea. However, Batu's army withdrew from Europe in 1241 when Og”dei died, and Batu returned to join the other khans in the selection of a new supreme ruler.

1244, A Mongol army led by Subotai conquered Anatolia in 1244 and linked up with Crusader king of Constantinople.

1251, The sons of Tuli (another son of Genghis Khan) took control of Mongol succession.

1251-1259, Mangu (Hulagu) Khan (1217- r1251-1259) took Persia, Syria and Mesopotamia.

1258, The Mongols under Mangu sacked the Muslim Seljuk capital at Baghdad and executed the caliph.

Just a little incite into their history.

Being pagan has nothing to do with it. From what I've seen of most people, they run like little girls from mere possibly unassuming spirits of all sorts. Why is it angels always greet people in the Bible with "Do not be afraid"? To see several superior beings with swords drawn, that's much worse. In case you didn't realize it, and maybe Khan did as well, you can't kill angels. How do you like the odds of fighting immortal beings bent on harm? One could only guess whether the swords were symbolic of what would happen to Khan should he attack Rome or not, but it certainly meant the end of the line, whatever form it would take, should he have proceeded.

From what I understand of the incident of which I spoke, there were no armies to stop Khan in Italy, except angelic ones apparently. I have heard other stories, whether they're true or not, of entire formations of Egyptian tanks and so forth during the Six Days War, which were totally without damage, complete with the fuel still in them that were abandoned. Sounds a lot like the angelic sort of thing I described. Somebody said something about them seeing angels too, I can't recall if they were just hypothesizing or if they actually caught up to some of the tank crews later.

I'm sure Khan has other problems, being a murderer tends to bring to murder back home to you, but from what I understand there was nothing to stop him from hitting Italy except what I described.

Just a little sidenote.

I wonder why Samarqand got degraded from the Mongol's second city to somewhere way down...?

Being pagan has nothing to do with it. From what I've seen of most people, they run like little girls from mere possibly unassuming spirits of all sorts. Why is it angels always greet people in the Bible with "Do not be afraid"? To see several superior beings with swords drawn, that's much worse. In case you didn't realize it, and maybe Khan did as well, you can't kill angels. How do you like the odds of fighting immortal beings bent on harm? One could only guess whether the swords were symbolic of what would happen to Khan should he attack Rome or not, but it certainly meant the end of the line, whatever form it would take, should he have proceeded.

From what I understand of the incident of which I spoke, there were no armies to stop Khan in Italy, except angelic ones apparently. I have heard other stories, whether they're true or not, of entire formations of Egyptian tanks and so forth during the Six Days War, which were totally without damage, complete with the fuel still in them that were abandoned. Sounds a lot like the angelic sort of thing I described. Somebody said something about them seeing angels too, I can't recall if they were just hypothesizing or if they actually caught up to some of the tank crews later.

I'm sure Khan has other problems, being a murderer tends to bring to murder back home to you, but from what I understand there was nothing to stop him from hitting Italy except what I described.

Just a little sidenote.

You have got to be kidding me... Angels for godsakes? Are you insane? Yes after conquering the known world and stopping at nothing for victory, oh wait, theres some angels, guys lets not attack Rome? Unless the Mongols were extremely drunk, theres no factual proof of this occuring, its like saying the talking snake in adam and eve was real... Right........ Science > Religion when it comes to the facts, sorry to say.

What about this. . . The Romans were Catholics right? As in Christians? We all remember whom it was who condemned Jesus Christ, a Roman. What makes you think angels will protect romans to begin with when they were the ones that tore down Solomons Temple in the BC and in 70AD for a 2nd time. And not only that, but crucifying Jesus. Yes, the angels will protect them for that.

Oh yes....divine intervention saved Rome :rolleyes:

You have got to be kidding me... Angels for godsakes? Are you insane? Yes after conquering the known world and stopping at nothing for victory, oh wait, theres some angels, guys lets not attack Rome? Unless the Mongols were extremely drunk, theres no factual proof of this occuring, its like saying the talking snake in adam and eve was real... Right........ Science > Religion when it comes to the facts, sorry to say.

What about this. . . The Romans were Catholics right? As in Christians? We all remember whom it was who condemned Jesus Christ, a Roman. What makes you think angels will protect romans to begin with when they were the ones that tore down Solomons Temple in the BC and in 70AD for a 2nd time. And not only that, but crucifying Jesus. Yes, the angels will protect them for that.

Yes, exactly, they were there for God's sake, since Jesus did promise to protect the Church. Doesn't mean He won't let it come to some harm, but only that it'll always be around. I never said there was proof of this, but it certainly would make sense why Khan wouldn't proceed.

As far as protecting Romans, you do realize that the Romans Christ's time and those of Khan's time were very different don't you? I believe almost all of them were Catholics. The Lord promised the Church would withstand even the Gates of Hell, so I suppose that was his way of protecting Rome from Khan. If Khan had troubles back home, and somehow that made him withdraw, it's all the same to me, Church is protected nonetheless, however I thought you might find that little tidbit I reported of interest. Also, the Romans of Khan's time, and recall there were very few Romans involved with killing Christ anyway, some even became Christian saints, were very far removed from the Romans of Christ's time. I think it's more a church/geographical thing to spare Rome in that case. You said the Francs and somebody else wasn't going to stop Khan, certainly not the Italians, so arguably direct Divine Intervention could have very well played a part.

One other thing though, about the Romans in 70AD. Irrespective of their individual guilt there may had been in razing Jerusalem, they apparently were a punishment to the Jews for crucifying and rejecting Christ. You need only recall Christ's prophecy of such to see the link. At any rate the Romans gutting Jerusalem though those Romans were certainly more numerous than the crucifiers of Christ, weren't the same Romans of Khan's time. There was the Church to protect, the Church of Christ, you know. You also just need recall the Biblical accounts of God punishing the Jews for other things to see that it's not all that rare that God will let 'some' harm come to those of His Church for purification.

Look, I don't want to get into this religious angle concerning Khan so much, I just thought you might find that angelic mention somewhat interesting. So, you think it's laughable, so be it.

This is all assuming the Christain "god" exists at all....Pfft....before claiming this type of ridiculous thing provide proof of the existence of "god"

I suppose the Pakistani's abandoning their tanks in the 1965 War and leaving them with their engins running in the middle of the fields was aslo divine intervention eh? And while we're at it why don't we attribute just about anything to divine intervention?

We don't need to hear your fairy tales here. This is history and fact.

Well while the Mongols were great conquerors, and intelligent enough to adopt administration practices from the empires they conquered, their down fall was the fact that they were terrible politicians.

The reason they left Europe was because of succession issues back home, and the continual weakening of centralized authority eventually collapsed them... If they had conquered Europe, World history probably wouldn't have been that different, except some of the names would be funnier. (just like their conquest of China+the Islamic world had minimal lasting effects) There would be a few Minor changes, new ideas slightly different time frames/geographical locations for important developments (the people in the Americas could be speaking French, or possibly even Chinese or Arabic, But the Khans probably would have collapsed before then)

Basically they are a key example of imperial overstretch. The Roman, Greek, Chinese, etc. empires before them all were of about the right size for possible reasonable long term stability. The Mongol empire was too large and too culturally diverse for stability (when I'm paying taxes I like to 'feel' I've got some representation even if its just that the person I'm paying to speaks my language...or at least knows it)

Their claim to fame is that they overstretched more than anyone else ever did.

PS God would have already 'dealt with' the Roman Empire by the year 500. So I wouldn't see any reason for him Not to save the city of Rome from the Mongols if its conquest wasn't part of his long term plans.

We don't need to hear your fairy tales here. This is history and fact.:) ....and your truth is all we need?! I enjoy hearing alternative stories when it comes to history as noone alive today know for sure what or how things happened back then. All we have now is sources of various reliability to interpret and make theories of (some more believable than others of course).

Whilst I admire your dedication to the history of Khan, If you plan on writing a book make sure you explore differing theories. Saying that 30 Million people 'had it comeing' is trite and offensive. Thats how terrorists speak. I admire Khans millitary genious, but he hardly contributed to the benefit of mankind in areas other than warfare. Now I'm SURE that you will comeback with a list of wish washy 'achievments' that may or may not be attributed to Khan; I ask you this - If the Mongol Empire was so fantastic, why did it last for such a short timespan? The romans might have held less land, but they did it for centuries and made among the most significant contributions to the world to date.

Mongolia? The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

This is all assuming the Christain "god" exists at all....Pfft....before claiming this type of ridiculous thing provide proof of the existence of "god"

I suppose the Pakistani's abandoning their tanks in the 1965 War and leaving them with their engins running in the middle of the fields was aslo divine intervention eh? And while we're at it why don't we attribute just about anything to divine intervention?

We don't need to hear your fairy tales here. This is history and fact.

1. You provide proof He does not exist.

2. Without the slightest idea why they would abandon undanged, fueled tanks you seem to have some proof it WASN'T Divine Intervention of some sort. Care to prove that? Frankly, Divine Intervention or not, in the case of the tanks, it makes no sense to me, apart from just plain terror. I mean even comparing the Khan deal I spoke about, the account wasn't that Khan left the horses in terror, but just that he turned back. I would think if it were me, that if I were in a tank, and saw something that terrorified me, the last thing I would do is leave the tank, afterall, what assurance do you have that leaving the tank will have the terror leave you alone; but I suppose panic can do that.

1. You provide proof He does not exist.

2. Without the slightest idea why they would abandon undanged, fueled tanks you seem to have some proof it WASN'T Divine Intervention of some sort. Care to prove that? Frankly, Divine Intervention or not, in the case of the tanks, it makes no sense to me, apart from just plain terror. I mean even comparing the Khan deal I spoke about, the account wasn't that Khan left the horses in terror, but just that he turned back. I would think if it were me, that if I were in a tank, and saw something that terrorified me, the last thing I would do is leave the tank, afterall, what assurance do you have that leaving the tank will have the terror leave you alone; but I suppose panic can do that.

No you provide proof that it exists since you are the one claiming it in the first place.

In the case of the tanks the Pakistani's routed and fled leaving their tanks behind. It was much the same with the Israelis during the 6 Day War which I think you mentioned.

There are numerous reasonable possobilties as to why the Mongols tunred back before Rome I believe the accepted was is that the current Khan died and they had to be recalled to choose a new Khan. In addition there could have been problems with supply lines, as well as daunting fortifications. Sorry but "God saved them" just does'nt cut if for me as that is an unreasobale, illogical explanation used when someone does'nt know how to explain something.

Whilst I admire your dedication to the history of Khan, If you plan on writing a book make sure you explore differing theories. Saying that 30 Million people 'had it comeing' is trite and offensive. Thats how terrorists speak. I admire Khans millitary genious, but he hardly contributed to the benefit of mankind in areas other than warfare. Now I'm SURE that you will comeback with a list of wish washy 'achievments' that may or may not be attributed to Khan; I ask you this - If the Mongol Empire was so fantastic, why did it last for such a short timespan? The romans might have held less land, but they did it for centuries and made among the most significant contributions to the world to date.

Mongolia? The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

Pax Mongolia. It was really the first time since the Romans that there was trade and contact between east and west. The Mongols were effective rulers and just rulers as well adopting many of the conquered practices. The Khans of the IlKhante even converted to Islam and Tamarlane is said to have descened from them and the Mughals are also an offshoot of the Mongols and they contributed massievly to Indian culture and arechitecture and religon.In addition to that building the largest continginous land Empire the world have ever seenm is quite an achievement in itself. While the united Mongol Empire did not survive long parts of it did such as the Golden Horder, the Il-Khanate and the Mughal descendents survived long after it and contributed much to history, culture, etc...
its influence continues till this day.

Something needs to be corrected : )
death count :
China population before age of temujin :
song : 80 million
jin : 60 million
xia : about 10 million
Total : 0.15 billion

At the time song was conquered :
Total : less than 50 million

0.1 billion people disappeared in china alone

not to mention the massacre they did on purpose to spread terror

Its interesting that the mongolian did nothing (they absolutely didnt care about the trade route, cultural exchange ) but kill , loot and kill, they still earned alot of respect from most *man* in our age. If temujin wasnt the real hero, i just cant think of anyone would deserve the title.

Touchy touchy...

Whilst I admire your dedication to the history of Khan, If you plan on writing a book make sure you explore differing theories. Saying that 30 Million people 'had it comeing' is trite and offensive. Thats how terrorists speak. I admire Khans millitary genious, but he hardly contributed to the benefit of mankind in areas other than warfare. Now I'm SURE that you will comeback with a list of wish washy 'achievments' that may or may not be attributed to Khan; I ask you this - If the Mongol Empire was so fantastic, why did it last for such a short timespan? The romans might have held less land, but they did it for centuries and made among the most significant contributions to the world to date.

Mongolia? The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

conquering countries is totally different from managing countries. They had absolute mililtary superiority at a cost of lacking knowledge in managing an empire.
Plus the world (western, especially) would have slowed down for at least 100 year without mongolian bringing all countries together, sharing culture, techs
read more about the history before you talk about it

No you provide proof that it exists since you are the one claiming it in the first place.

In the case of the tanks the Pakistani's routed and fled leaving their tanks behind. It was much the same with the Israelis during the 6 Day War which I think you mentioned.

There are numerous reasonable possobilties as to why the Mongols tunred back before Rome I believe the accepted was is that the current Khan died and they had to be recalled to choose a new Khan. In addition there could have been problems with supply lines, as well as daunting fortifications. Sorry but "God saved them" just does'nt cut if for me as that is an unreasobale, illogical explanation used when someone does'nt know how to explain something.

Unlike you, I need no proof He exists anymore than I need proof you exist, however, I do have proof He exists, only I didn't come to the thread for that purpose, and since you wouldn't believe it anyway I'll not bore you with the details (it was only proveable in my own personal case, though from what I've heard from others it's not all too rare).

As for the Khan story, assuming it were correct, the story was that Khan himself had seen the visions and that he just turned back. He didn't lose his life as the story goes and if one has the slightest clue as to what the symbology of superior beings with swords ready for use means he made a wise decision.

Unlike you, I need no proof He exists anymore than I need proof you exist, however, I do have proof He exists, only I didn't come to the thread for that purpose, and since you wouldn't believe it anyway I'll not bore you with the details (it was only proveable in my own personal case, though from what I've heard from others it's not all too rare).

As for the Khan story, assuming it were correct, the story was that Khan himself had seen the visions and that he just turned back. He didn't lose his life as the story goes and if one has the slightest clue as to what the symbology of superior beings with swords ready for use means he made a wise decision.

King Mongke was the last of Genghis' crusading Khans before the decline of their empire, he died in the Middle East, not even near Rome. He hastened back to Mongolia for an election because he was dying. Don't forget, your correct, the Mongols didn't rule for long,
Mongols Conquered: approx. 13.8 million square miles at its height.
Romans Conquered: approx. 3.5 million square miles at its height.

Not to mention, the Khans of the Mongols, brave as they were conquered WITH their army, suffering the wounds and heartaches of battle. The Roman Leaders sat at home for some 800 years while the Mongols conquered roughly 4x as much land in only roughly 150 years. The reason they didn't last as long might I add is because their Khans(kings) TRAVELLED WITH the armies, which will indeed make them weaker as they get older (from battle wounds) compared to Roman Emperors who sit in their throwns and scratch their ass all day. I'd love to see a Roman Emperor square off against Genghis Khan, Og''dai Khan, Batu Khan, Mongke Khan, etc. I'd just love to see it. They sat there acknowledging what the Senate proposed. They couldn't even rule by themselves, and all they did was sit at home, pathetic.

conquering countries is totally different from managing countries. They had absolute mililtary superiority at a cost of lacking knowledge in managing an empire.
Plus the world (western, especially) would have slowed down for at least 100 year without mongolian bringing all countries together, sharing culture, techs
read more about the history before you talk about it

Wow. You managaged to say nothing at all, but drag it out for a whole paragraph. You clearly dont have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

I'm sorry my story is a bit sketchy, but IIRC Khan was approaching Italy or Rome itself, and some saint, or maybe it was the Pope at the time, met him. Supposedly Khan decided not to attack, because he saw an army of angels with drawn swords behind whoever that person was. I wish I could recall where I read about that. I'm not sure if anyone but Khan was aware of those angels.


That was Atilla the Hun, and he turned back because winter was coming and in those times military campaigning in winter wasn't really done.

That was Atilla the Hun, and he turned back because winter was coming and in those times military campaigning in winter wasn't really done.

I kind of thought it may have been Atila the Hun, because they did infact make it to Rome. And due to the winter, I agree with you that it wasn't smart to lay sieges in Winter :)

Something needs to be corrected : )
death count :
China population before age of temujin :
song : 80 million
jin : 60 million
xia : about 10 million
Total : 0.15 billion

At the time song was conquered :
Total : less than 50 million

0.1 billion people disappeared in china alone

not to mention the massacre they did on purpose to spread terror

Its interesting that the mongolian did nothing (they absolutely didnt care about the trade route, cultural exchange ) but kill , loot and kill, they still earned alot of respect from most *man* in our age. If temujin wasnt the real hero, i just cant think of anyone would deserve the title.

the black death began at this time in China and would slowly make it's way to Europe via the Mongols

Unlike you, I need no proof He exists anymore than I need proof you exist, however, I do have proof He exists, only I didn't come to the thread for that purpose, and since you wouldn't believe it anyway I'll not bore you with the details (it was only proveable in my own personal case, though from what I've heard from others it's not all too rare).

As for the Khan story, assuming it were correct, the story was that Khan himself had seen the visions and that he just turned back. He didn't lose his life as the story goes and if one has the slightest clue as to what the symbology of superior beings with swords ready for use means he made a wise decision.

I hate to interject but your first paragraph is nonsensical..Personal proof that is unreproducable is not scientific proof.
For something to be proven it must be recreatable.
With regard to the second paragraph...I imagine that story was written by Western European christians and as such is no more reliable than any other religiously influenced text of the time.
I am glad you have faith, truely I am. But do not believe that ALL others share it. Respect peoples differences.

EdCase, one thing I really hate is the double standard applied to theists and atheists. All he said was what he believed. The guy he was talking to told him straight out, you are wrong. Yet the person you lecture is the one that said he believes because of something that happened to him? Hypocrisy at its best.

Being a student of history or at least having a University degree in the subject I find this whole discussion very interesting. I am always saddened to see revisionist historians judging people in the past by our standards today. It was a harsh, unforgiving time. I do take exception to the statement that the Mongols conqured the known world. A large part of Europe they did not conquer. They did not conquer any of Africa thanks to the Mamalukes in Egypt. I actually am more impressed with the Vietnamese. They managed to keep themselves independant from the Chinese for hundreds of years and defeated a huge mongol invading army. In this century they have defeated the French, Americans and Chinese alone.

Here's a good article:
http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/9.htm
In 1225 the Tran family, which had effectively controlled the Vietnamese throne for many years, replaced the Ly dynasty by arranging a marriage between one of its members and the last Ly monarch, an eight-year-old princess. Under the Tran dynasty (1225-1400), the country prospered and flourished as the Tran rulers carried out extensive land reform, improved public administration, and encouraged the study of Chinese literature. The Tran, however, are best remembered for their defense of the country against the Mongols and the Cham. By 1225, the Mongols controlled most of northern China and Manchuria and were eyeing southern China, Vietnam, and Champa. In 1257, 1284, and 1287, the Mongol armies of Kublai Khan invaded Vietnam, sacking the capital at Thang Long (renamed Hanoi in 1831) on each occasion, only to find that the Vietnamese had anticipated their attacks and evacuated the city beforehand. Disease, shortage of supplies, the climate, and the Vietnamese strategy of harassment and scorchedearth tactics foiled the first two invasions. The third Mongol invasion, of 300,000 men and a vast fleet, was also defeated by the Vietnamese under the leadership of General Tran Hung Dao. Borrowing a tactic used by Ngo Quyen in 938 to defeat an invading Chinese fleet, the Vietnamese drove iron-tipped stakes into the bed of the Bach Dang River (located in northern Vietnam in present-day Ha Bac, Hai Hung, and Quang Ninh provinces), and then, with a small Vietnamese flotilla, lured the Mongol fleet into the river just as the tide was starting to ebb. Trapped or impaled by the iron-tipped stakes, the entire Mongol fleet of 400 craft was sunk, captured, or burned by Vietnamese fire arrows. The Mongol army retreated to China, harassed enroute by Tran Hung Dao's troops.

I really think the Vietnamese should be included in Civ as a playable nation. Fascinating history with some great leaders, male and female.

Wow. You managaged to say nothing at all, but drag it out for a whole paragraph. You clearly dont have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
put up something before you troll

I really think the Vietnamese should be included in Civ as a playable nation. Fascinating history with some great leaders, male and female.

Yes and a South-East Asian nation is needed.

I love hearing about the Mongols.
I don't like people bickering over religion when it is entirely out of context. (You prove god exists, no you prove god doesn't exist, no, you started it you first (you guys are freaking nuts)).

Stories are all that is really left of ancient history. We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. And who's to say statistics are not as much fairy tales as angels and unicorns back in ancient times? Who took those records (15 million killed, 30 million killed, I also read 100 million killed in this thread so far)? What makes them accurate in any way?

It's okay to admire the fact thet ghengis khan Concquered so much, but he probably was a bad person. He might have been good in an utiliaristic sense of the word but after all nothing but a ruthless murder with talent for conquering.

It's okay to admire the fact thet ghengis khan Concquered so much, but he probably was a bad person. He might have been good in an utiliaristic sense of the word but after all nothing but a ruthless murder with talent for conquering.
That could be said about almost ANY conqueror.

Although death totals can only be estimates there are historical accounts of the destruction of entire cities. Although it was a harsh and brutal time to live in, these death totals are mind boggling.

The Mongols were a nomadic people who in the 13th century found themselves encompassed by the world's great civilizations. China and India lay to the south, Islam to the southwest, and Russia to the west, with Europe beyond. Genghis (or Jinghiz) Khan, feared that the spread of the civilizations would destroy the Mongol way of life, and so set out to destroy them first. His goal was not conquest, but destruction. He dreamed of pasturing the Mongol horses in the ruins of the world's cities.

The Mongols wiped out entire cities, sparing no one. In the Persian city of Nishapur, in 1221, an estimated 1.7 million people were slaughtered. That same year in Merv, an estimated 1.3 million were killed at the hands of the Mongols, and in Meru Chahjan nearly as many again. In the city of Rayy, an estimated 1.6 million died.

From 1226-1233, Genghis Khan waged a genocidal war against the Tanguts, a people of China. In 1258 the Mongols took Baghdad and killed and estimated 800,000 people. Khubilai Khan, the Mongol emperor of China, murdered a reported 18 million Chinese over a forty year reign.

Before the rise of the Mongol empire, the Chinese and Islamic civilizations surpassed the west in power and sophistication. When Mongol power finally waned, Europe had surpassed the east. The destruction wrought by the Mongols on the eastern civilizations, and western Europe's immunity to it, may have played a large part bringing about this change.

http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_pre20a.html

I agree with some posters in that he was a product of his time. The scale he did these things on is scary, but you must remember it was viewed as acceptable to burn/pillage/marauder if you didn't get your way. Rome, Babylon, Egypt and everyone else did the same. Also, the mongol empire briged east and west, starting the move towards the 'global' era.

Being a student of history or at least having a University degree in the subject I find this whole discussion very interesting. I am always saddened to see revisionist historians judging people in the past by our standards today. It was a harsh, unforgiving time. I do take exception to the statement that the Mongols conqured the known world. A large part of Europe they did not conquer. They did not conquer any of Africa thanks to the Mamalukes in Egypt. I actually am more impressed with the Vietnamese. They managed to keep themselves independant from the Chinese for hundreds of years and defeated a huge mongol invading army. In this century they have defeated the French, Americans and Chinese alone.

Here's a good article:
http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/9.htm
In 1225 the Tran family, which had effectively controlled the Vietnamese throne for many years, replaced the Ly dynasty by arranging a marriage between one of its members and the last Ly monarch, an eight-year-old princess. Under the Tran dynasty (1225-1400), the country prospered and flourished as the Tran rulers carried out extensive land reform, improved public administration, and encouraged the study of Chinese literature. The Tran, however, are best remembered for their defense of the country against the Mongols and the Cham. By 1225, the Mongols controlled most of northern China and Manchuria and were eyeing southern China, Vietnam, and Champa. In 1257, 1284, and 1287, the Mongol armies of Kublai Khan invaded Vietnam, sacking the capital at Thang Long (renamed Hanoi in 1831) on each occasion, only to find that the Vietnamese had anticipated their attacks and evacuated the city beforehand. Disease, shortage of supplies, the climate, and the Vietnamese strategy of harassment and scorchedearth tactics foiled the first two invasions. The third Mongol invasion, of 300,000 men and a vast fleet, was also defeated by the Vietnamese under the leadership of General Tran Hung Dao. Borrowing a tactic used by Ngo Quyen in 938 to defeat an invading Chinese fleet, the Vietnamese drove iron-tipped stakes into the bed of the Bach Dang River (located in northern Vietnam in present-day Ha Bac, Hai Hung, and Quang Ninh provinces), and then, with a small Vietnamese flotilla, lured the Mongol fleet into the river just as the tide was starting to ebb. Trapped or impaled by the iron-tipped stakes, the entire Mongol fleet of 400 craft was sunk, captured, or burned by Vietnamese fire arrows. The Mongol army retreated to China, harassed enroute by Tran Hung Dao's troops.

I really think the Vietnamese should be included in Civ as a playable nation. Fascinating history with some great leaders, male and female.

Hahahaha lol

So you know, the Mongols stopped their invasion for 1 reason, Khan Mongke was dying and civil was was about to erupt in Mongolia (the original land) for control of Temujins Empire. They weren't stopped by anybody, they left few soldiers in their conquered land and fell back their main armies to Mongolia, the decline began.

I agree with some posters in that he was a product of his time. The scale he did these things on is scary, but you must remember it was viewed as acceptable to burn/pillage/marauder if you didn't get your way. Rome, Babylon, Egypt and everyone else did the same. Also, the mongol empire briged east and west, starting the move towards the 'global' era.

13.8 million square miles to be exact, no empire had touched this feat in history.

Don't forget at this time, the Population of the world was more then it was when the Romans conquered and when Alexander conquered, hence more resistance, still Temujin got the job done.

Genghis Khan was ruthless towards people who resisted the advances of his army. If a town or city fought back, he laid siege to the town and, at its conclusion, would exterminate its inhabitants. When news of these tactics spread, Mongol armies easily and successfully took over towns that would surrender as soon as the Mongols showed their faces. The Mongols literally decimated populations in Western Asia and China as they advanced. As a result of all these tactics, the Mongol armies spread across the landscape like wildfire. They marched inexorably south into Chin territory and west into Asia and even Europe.

Now it seems to me, that these peoples death was of their own doing. To simply bow down to an OBVIOUSLY superior leader and have your life spared seems like the smart thing to have been done.

I love hearing about the Mongols.
I don't like people bickering over religion when it is entirely out of context. (You prove god exists, no you prove god doesn't exist, no, you started it you first (you guys are freaking nuts)).

I think we've all agreed, this angel nonsense was Atila the Hun and not Genghis Khan.

I kind of thought it may have been Atila the Hun, because they did infact make it to Rome. And due to the winter, I agree with you that it wasn't smart to lay sieges in Winter :)

Yes, I might had got my barbarians mixed up:lol: Like I said the story with the angels in just vaguely in my memory, and whereever I saw that story I saw it only once, though it may be in one of my books at home.

I hate to interject but your first paragraph is nonsensical..Personal proof that is unreproducable is not scientific proof.
For something to be proven it must be recreatable.
With regard to the second paragraph...I imagine that story was written by Western European christians and as such is no more reliable than any other religiously influenced text of the time.
I am glad you have faith, truely I am. But do not believe that ALL others share it. Respect peoples differences.

Not scientifically proveable? Who cares? As I said, I don't need proof that God exists or that poster exists for that matter. Why someone would limit their life to what's scientifically proveable, is silly to me (and they don't anyway). There's plenty of things we cannot prove, yet we believe them anyway. We take a lot of things by faith, as the ones in the asylum often are the ones who kept reaching for proof that they themselves really existed and so on. I dare say 99.9% of what we know to be true, weren't due to our personal experimentation to prove they exist, and that would be silly of course if we did.

I still wonder how people, scientists mind you, can somehow tell me how far away a star is, and actually know. Unless you did what they did, which was probably nothing more than guess in many cases, but with some form of structure to the method, then you take it be faith that they aren't lying, etc.

As far as others not sharing my faith, it was for that very reason I brought my sketchy material, because I thought it would be original, and might be an interesting sidelight. Oh well, I tried.

Woah!! 5 pages long on Genghis Khan!! :eek:

Anyway, I remember a game by Koei called Genghis Khan 2: Clan of the Grey Wolf or some sort, where there are different scenarios leading up to the World Conquest one (1st scenario is the unifying of Mongolia). An extremely old but nice game...

Anyway speaking of warfare and such, not sure if it had been mentioned here before, the Mongol used a composite recurve bow during their invasion. The recurve bows are known for their power and accuracy. Since their composite bows are made from a few materials, namely horns from ibex or water buffalos, birk wood and bamboo, it gives the bow robustness, accuracy as well as lightness and portability.

That coupled with their great horsemanship put them at a huge advantage in battles. Imagine just tens of Mongolian horsemen screaming at the top of their voice, charging at you with a bow and arrow pointed to your face. Their superiority in military technology, aggressiveness and experience in combat and horseback riding is their advantage during their conquests. Thing is, it won't take long before someone else is bold enough to copy or discover a better way to combat these light cavalry archers.

Not scientifically proveable? Who cares? As I said, I don't need proof that God exists or that poster exists for that matter. Why someone would limit their life to what's scientifically proveable, is silly to me (and they don't anyway). There's plenty of things we cannot prove, yet we believe them anyway. We take a lot of things by faith, as the ones in the asylum often are the ones who kept reaching for proof that they themselves really existed and so on. I dare say 99.9% of what we know to be true, weren't due to our personal experimentation to prove they exist, and that would be silly of course if we did.

I still wonder how people, scientists mind you, can somehow tell me how far away a star is, and actually know. Unless you did what they did, which was probably nothing more than guess in many cases, but with some form of structure to the method, then you take it be faith that they aren't lying, etc.

They learned to measure light and use it to judge how far away objects in the sky were. There are a number of techniques, but why not ask an astronomer how they do it instead of just throwing your hands up in the air and giving up? I don't have to take a scientist on faith, if I don't believe them, I can study the subject myself, look at their data and their results and determine for myself whether or not they are correct. It's totally unneccessary to take science on faith because it is backed up with evidence and methodology.

Religion on the other hand is quite the opposite. One cannot question it and find answers (at least no satisfying answers). It just asks to be accepted and never questioned. I find that far more rediculous.

As far as others not sharing my faith, it was for that very reason I brought my sketchy material, because I thought it would be original, and might be an interesting sidelight. Oh well, I tried.

You really shouldn't have brought your faith into this discussion at all. It had no place here. What you believe is your own business and nobody else's. I might not agree with it, but I don't have to.

One thing I should clarify about the supposed massacre of Chinese by Monglols, this number was hypothsized from the census taken "before" and "after" the Mongols invasion. Now census were recorded by the chinese bureaucracy which were decimated, also the Mongols are not too particular about record keeping, so the bureaucracy was not expanded to its previous number. Another curious fact is that Mongolians instituted the practice of slavery, entire regions of people were taken into slavery, the slaves of course were not considered in the census, since it is for the purpose of tax collection. It can be seen from this example that the casualty might be exaggerated. Anyway this entire topic should be in the History forums, there are more people over there who is interested in such topics.

So you know, the Mongols stopped their invasion for 1 reason, Khan Mongke was dying and civil was was about to erupt in Mongolia (the original land) for control of Temujins Empire. They weren't stopped by anybody, they left few soldiers in their conquered land and fell back their main armies to Mongolia, the decline began.

Yes. They tried 3 times to invade Vietnam, failed each time so the crappy excuse you give is that they had political instability back home. They got defeated by a smarter more ingenious opponent. The Mongols were not the only ones that were adaptable and able to demonstrate military genius.

They were defeated by the Malmukes as well.

Yes. They tried 3 times to invade Vietnam, failed each time so the crappy excuse you give is that they had political instability back home. They got defeated by a smarter more ingenious opponent. The Mongols were not the only ones that were adaptable and able to demonstrate military genius.

That is correct. This was done under Kublai Khan's rule. The dense and harsh jungles were ill-suited for the warriors of the steppes.
They tried invading Japan too but suffered much losses from typhoon storms that hit their ships.

I guess they should tried stick to what they do best....

They were defeated quite decisively too I might add by the Mamluks. Here is a good link on the battle and an excellent read for other things Mongol related:

http://www.strategypage.com/articles/default.asp?target=mongol.htm

Oh yes, I was thinking the same thing. Generally the Mongols were masters on the plains and open steppe but not so good at sea and in the jungle. You can't be good at everything I guess:P

They were defeated quite decisively too I might add by the Mamluks. Here is a good link on the battle and an excellent read for other things Mongol related:

http://www.strategypage.com/articles/default.asp?target=mongol.htm

Oh yes, I was thinking the same thing. Generally the Mongols were masters on the plains and open steppe but not so good at sea and in the jungle. You can't be good at everything I guess:P

These are stst from the link you posted

Table 1. Population (in millions) for various regions at the beginning of 13th & 14th centuries
Year
Region AD 1200
AD 1300 % Change
China 115.00 86.00 -25.2%
Korea 4.00 3.00 -25.0%
Manchuria 4.50 4.80 1.1%
East Turkestan 2.20 2.30 4.5%
Iran 5.00 3.50 -30.0%
Afghanistan 2.50 1.75 -30.0%
Iraq 1.50 1.00 -33.3%
Europe 58.00 79.00 36.2%
India 86.00 91.00 5.8%
Total 278.70 272.35 --

Thats quite something.....

Now it seems to me, that these peoples death was of their own doing. To simply bow down to an OBVIOUSLY superior leader and have your life spared seems like the smart thing to have been done.


it wasn't obviously to all, those that never actually saw the army or thought that their rulers with larger number of forces would be able to defend against them might have though resisting them was best.

but even so I believe the smart thing would have been to fight back, it's better to died on your feet than to live as a slave being abused, raped, and tortured...

Yes. They tried 3 times to invade Vietnam, failed each time so the crappy excuse you give is that they had political instability back home. They got defeated by a smarter more ingenious opponent. The Mongols were not the only ones that were adaptable and able to demonstrate military genius.

http://www.afvn.tv/ProjectJenny/vietnam.gif

anybody can strategically hit and run with that type of country, long and thin.

That is correct. This was done under Kublai Khan's rule. The dense and harsh jungles were ill-suited for the warriors of the steppes.
They tried invading Japan too but suffered much losses from typhoon storms that hit their ships.

I guess they should tried stick to what they do best....

True, see Vietnam had enough sense to stay where they belonged because on Chienese/Mongolian turf they'd have been massacred, the Mongolians were used to long flat steppes then harsh jungles (Just like when Alexander invaded India, the jungle setting and mass rains were unseen before by his armies, creating a harder setting(hence why he almost lost).

EDIT: OH and also, with all that Jungle everywhere, it made it virtually impossible for mongolian horse archers to gallop freely and snipe down the viets.

I really think the Vietnamese should be included in Civ as a playable nation. Fascinating history with some great leaders, male and female.

And the fact that they also came out to face the Mongolians without hiding in their jungles? See the Mongolians conquered 13.8 million square miles, they EARNED their spot in civ4, what did the Vietnamese do other than fortify the jungle and sit it out?

Now had they came out and stopped hiding and fought on neutral ground, I'd love to see their strategies work as they get mowed down like grass.

So you have to conquer people and obtain military glory to be a successful civ? At least according to Civ 4, no you don't. You can be a peaceful builder and succeed. However, the Vietnamese have been quite successful militarily throughout their long history. For example, the Vietnamese were the first to sack Angkor Wat. Also, as previously stated they have defeated the numerically superior Chinese on many occasions. They have also defeated three of the main military powers in the twentieth century. I think they would make an excellent addition to the game. I will have to think about leaders, traits and a unique unit for them.

After 2 days, this thread exploded into 5 pages long!

I am beginning to wonder, do those westerners or europeans have the impression of "The mongols and Genghis Khan is a ruthless killer" ?. Is this the history that u guys picked up at ur high school ?

Just wondering.. Since history education that is being projected into the students is different from country to country. Like the japanese try to avoid stating the atrocities they have done in WW2 in their history books.

Jus a guess ok? Nothing personal.

http://www.afvn.tv/ProjectJenny/vietnam.gif

anybody can strategically hit and run with that type of country, long and thin.

you made this hypothesis from a modern-day map of Vietnam?

1) Were the Tartars Mongols?
2) How effective were Mongol horse archers? I don't know if you've ever played the Rome: Total War game and the expansion, but the horse archers of the various barbarian nations are very tough to deal with without a lot of your own cavalry. Infantry are almost completely ineffective. Your men run after the horse archers but the horse archers are too fast. That's why the pikemen-beating-horsearchers thing in Civ4 is unrealistic, if you tried attacking an army of horse archers with an army of spearmen in R:TW they would take arrow fire from all sides as they chase the horse archers around, they would take heavy casualties and get exhausted and eventually just break and run. The only thing the horse archers have to worry about (vs infantry) in R:TW is running out of arrows, and in real life they could just retreat and resupply.
Why didn't the horse and the bow become the dominant superweapon for all the medieval powers? Why did armies continue to consist of mostly foot soldiers?

The third Mongol invasion, of 300,000 men and a vast fleet, was also defeated by the Vietnamese under the leadership of General Tran Hung Dao. Borrowing a tactic used by Ngo Quyen in 938 to defeat an invading Chinese fleet, the Vietnamese drove iron-tipped stakes into the bed of the Bach Dang River (located in northern Vietnam in present-day Ha Bac, Hai Hung, and Quang Ninh provinces), and then, with a small Vietnamese flotilla, lured the Mongol fleet into the river just as the tide was starting to ebb. Trapped or impaled by the iron-tipped stakes, the entire Mongol fleet of 400 craft was sunk, captured, or burned by Vietnamese fire arrows.

This is hard to believe. Driving metal spikes into a river without modern machinery is easier said than done. How did this go unnoticed to the Mongols? What happened to their spies? The Mongol empire had a lot of money. How many dirt poor Vietnamese peasants saw this operation? How many would happily sell out their country for the riches that the Mongols would pay to anyone who helped prevent the anihilation of their fleet?

Here is information on the Tartars:

Tatars (Tatar: Tatarlar/Татарлар) is a collective name applied to the Turkic people of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The name is derived from Ta-ta or Dada, a Mongolian tribe that inhabited present Northeast Mongolia in the 5th century A.D. First used to describe the peoples that overran parts of Asia and Europe under Mongol leadership in the 13th century A.D., it was later extended to include almost any Asian nomadic invader, whether from Mongolia or the fringes of Western Asia. Before the 1920s Russians used the name Tatar to designate a numerous peoples from the Azerbaijani Turks to tribes of the Siberia.

Most current day Tatars live in the central and southern parts of Russia (the majority in Tatarstan), Ukraine, Poland and in Bulgaria, China, Kazakhstan, Romania, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. They collectively numbered more than 8 million in the late 20th century. Most Tatars are Sunni Muslims.

The majority—in European Russia—are descendants of the Volga Bulgars who were conquered by the Mongol invasion of the 13th century and kept the name of their conquerors. Tatars of Siberia are survivors of the once much more numerous Turkic-Mongoloid population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some extent with the speakers of Uralic languages, as well as with Mongols.

The name is derived from that of the Ta-ta Mongols, who in the 5th century inhabited the north-eastern Gobi, and, after subjugation in the 9th century by the Khitans, migrated southward, there founding the Mongol empire under Genghis Khan. Under the leadership of his grandson Batu Khan they moved westwards, driving with them many stems of the Turkic Ural-Altaians towards the plains of Russia.

On the Volga they mingled with remnants of the old Bulgarian empire (Volga Bulgaria), and elsewhere with Finno-Ugric speaking peoples, as well as with remnants of the ancient Italian and Greek colonies in the Crimea and Caucasians in the Caucasus.

The name of Tatars, or Tartars, given to the invaders, was afterwards extended so as to include different stems of the same Turkic-Mongoloid branch in Siberia, and even the bulk of the inhabitants of the high plateau of Asia and its northwestern slopes, described under the general name of Tartary (or Tatary. This last name has almost disappeared from geographical literature, but the name Tatars, in the above limited sense, remains in full use.

The present Tatar inhabitants of Eurasia form three large groups:

* those of Crimea, Bulgaria, European Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Turkey.
* those of the Caucasus,
* and those of Siberia.

Due to the vast movements and intermingling of peoples along with the very loose utilization of the name Tatar, current day Tatars include ethnic groups that look Mongoloid at one end and Caucasoid at the other. As to the original Tatars from Mongolia, they most likely shared characteristics with the Mongol invaders from Central Asia.
Contents

This is hard to believe. Driving metal spikes into a river without modern machinery is easier said than done. How did this go unnoticed to the Mongols? What happened to their spies? The Mongol empire had a lot of money. How many dirt poor Vietnamese peasants saw this operation? How many would happily sell out their country for the riches that the Mongols would pay to anyone who helped prevent the anihilation of their fleet?


Well it did happen and in fact it happened twice. They pulled the exact same trick in 938 AD. Perhaps the Mongols should have read up on their history ;)
Oh and if you actually read up on the battle, the Vietnamese used iron tipped stakes not iron stakes. A little easier to manage really. They got advance warning of the Mongols coming. The Mongols used the element of suprise as a big part of their strategy. The Vietnamese were warned in advance each time they were invaded and it gave them a strategic advantage.

Here is an interesting article on Mongol warfare. It is partly through the article and it gives an interesting point of view.

http://www.eco.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/http2gophermail?server=gopher.eco.utexas.edu&request=R52075-145666-/mailing/chiapas95.archive/netwararts

How effective were Mongol horse archers? I don't know if you've ever played the Rome: Total War game and the expansion, but the horse archers of the various barbarian nations are very tough to deal with without a lot of your own cavalry. Infantry are almost completely ineffective. Your men run after the horse archers but the horse archers are too fast.:D I love the horse archers in RTW, the dreaded cantabarian circle! I slaughtered my friend Roman troops easily with my scythian horse archers. This has historic precedence as well, Rome had great difficulty in their campaigns against the parthian's calvary archers. Well the Mongols were a thousand years more advance, they already had a more powerful composite bow, stirrups, armor, horses and metallurgy. So I would guess they are superior in every way.

I'm sorry my story is a bit sketchy, but IIRC Khan was approaching Italy or Rome itself, and some saint, or maybe it was the Pope at the time, met him. Supposedly Khan decided not to attack, because he saw an army of angels with drawn swords behind whoever that person was. I wish I could recall where I read about that. I'm not sure if anyone but Khan was aware of those angels.

No, it was the Huns and Attila, different tribe, other era.

Check next post

Well the Mongols were a thousand years more advance, they already had a more powerful composite bow, stirrups, armor, horses and metallurgy. So I would guess they are superior in every way.

And one of the greatest military leaders of all time.

it wasn't obviously to all, those that never actually saw the army or thought that their rulers with larger number of forces would be able to defend against them might have though resisting them was best.

but even so I believe the smart thing would have been to fight back, it's better to died on your feet than to live as a slave being abused, raped, and tortured...

Sh!t happens, that was the life of the time. They shoulda ran to a neighbour and joined forces. Also, if they were bold enough to think they could withstand the invaders, they should atleast have learned of past battles and the consequences of resisting

The Mongols were not the only ones that were adaptable and able to demonstrate military genius.

Must have been so hard to hide in the jungle, instead of meet them on a neutral ground. But you know, that requires military genius and all.

Generally the Mongols were masters on the plains and open steppe but not so good at sea and in the jungle. You can't be good at everything I guess:P

A. They're NOT pirates
B. They're NOT Rambos, I have no respect for them hiding in their jungles instead of facing them on a neutral turf... Plus, this thread I believe originated FOR Genghis Khan, not Kublai Khan. Now had it been Genghis Khan, it may have been a different story. Oh and BTW, out of Og''dai, Mongke, Genghis, Batu and Kublai, Kublai sucked the most at military strategy, he was all about prosperity and thats why he built the Forbidden Palace in China. He basked in the riches of China (which is 1 reason they invaded China) Because the country was extremely wealthy and they wanted to plunder it all.

Im just as guilty for moving the post off the original topic, but we should head backwards >_<!

Thread moved.

You slipped under my radar over the weekend. ;) We have a whole forum for discussing World History.

Anybody read the US New and World Reports special issues on Conquerors? I read it about a month ago, and it had some pretty cool stuff to say about the Khan(s). (Sorry, hope it's not offensive to phrase it that way.) One of the most interesting articles in the issue.

Here's a link to the magazine site. You may still be able to get it on newsstands. Conquerors Special Issue (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/store/products/prod_conquerors.htm)

There was even a side note about how current people trace their lineage back to either Kublai or Genghis and use it to hit on girls. :lol:

P.S. I hope I got the facts right and spelling right. I don't have the magazine in front of me.

Hey KingKHAN - Welcome to CFC History!! Thanks for the thread!! :goodjob:

I'd just like to fill you in on some of the discussions that have taken place here regarding the Mongols.

Does anyone know the details for the Mongols invasion plan of Europe?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110109
(It's a bit down this same History front page)

The Story of the Lajkonik by Vrylakas < great posts.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=58648

Medieval Asia articles many of which deal with the Mongols
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1423157&postcount=2

History Articles List contains the above collection
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=58645

See you around! :)

Thread moved.

You slipped under my radar over the weekend. ;) We have a whole forum for discussing World History.

k thank you :)

I wish Genghis Khan lived longer, or atleast his predecessors were just as smart, they would have been flawless in their campaign

Sh!t happens, that was the life of the time. They shoulda ran to a neighbour and joined forces. Also, if they were bold enough to think they could withstand the invaders, they should atleast have learned of past battles and the consequences of resisting

never said "sh!t" didn't happen was pointing out that you assumptions on what was best were not correct

there's nothing bold about believing that your ruler's armies numbering 2, 3 or who knows how many times greater than the number of forces the Mongol had would win.

it has to do with a lack of military understanding and not about being "bold"

and people back than couldn't possibly have known what you know through the study of history, you have the benefit of hindsight

the mongols often used tactics like divide and conquer, so they most likely couldn't "run to a neighbour" as that neighbor would more likely be an enemy that would love to see that kingdom destroyed

you make too many assumptions, it isn't that easy to learn from previous battles and devise an affective tactic to counter the mongols

"that was the life of the time" yes that was my point, it's better to die in battle than suffer through enslavement at the hands of the Mongols

B. They're NOT Rambos, I have no respect for them hiding in their jungles instead of facing them on a neutral turf...

The Vietnamese were strategically intelligent. When facing a superior enemy it is best to wear them down without giving them battle. And that is exactly what they did. I have greater respect for Vietnamese tactics then Mongolk "courage"

Tactics that involve not being able to fight and have to hide, encore for their bravery! In actuality, they would have gotten broken in half vs a Mongol -_-)

you make too many assumptions, it isn't that easy to learn from previous battles and devise an affective tactic to counter the mongols.

Yeah it is, it's called battle plan. You should know your enemy before hand, otherwise your a complete fool.

Tactics that involve not being able to fight and have to hide, encore for their bravery! In actuality, they would have gotten broken in half vs a Mongol -_-)

If you consider lining up facing your enemy in an open plain brave then go right ahead....I call that stupidity however
The best tactican is one who can win a battle before it is even fought. The Mongols invaded Vietnam and they lost due to superior Vietnamese strategy and tactics. What do you not understand about that? That is the reality not some hypothtical one on one battle.

Good for it being a strategy, but saying it took great military genius to do, anybody can do that, hide and repel attacks.

Actually, most of the whole Eurasia Continent couldnt do what "anybody can do"

Yeah it is, it's called battle plan. You should know your enemy before hand, otherwise your a complete fool.If everyone has perfect intelligence, there won't need to have a war, The best laid plans fails on first contact with the enemy, Murphys's law. All the things people say when military plans fail. The main point of fighting a war is to win, not to gain points by being brave, especially if you are outnumbered and the enemy has better equipment and weapon.

Here is information on the Tartars:
The name is derived from that of the Ta-ta Mongols, who in the 5th century inhabited the north-eastern Gobi, and, after subjugation in the 9th century by the Khitans, migrated southward, there founding the Mongol empire under Genghis Khan. Under the leadership of his grandson Batu Khan they moved westwards, driving with them many stems of the Turkic Ural-Altaians towards the plains of Russia.

That is a misleading information from the wikipedia.

Genghis Khan was not from Tartar Mongol. Tartar was a bitter enemy of Genghis Khan's tribe in the early Genghis Khan's life. Tartar controlled over southeast Mongolia bordering Jin and Xia. Genghis Khan eliminated them in 1202. Why is Tartar more popular in name? I guess Mongolian adopted "Ta-ta" to generalize Mongolian tribe. Maybe there are more people from Tartar tribe in Genghis Khan's's army when Genghis Khan's tribe absorb the Tartar people. Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding by the neighboring nations back then thinking that Genghis Khan was from Tartar Mongol.

Being a student of history or at least having a University degree in the subject I find this whole discussion very interesting. I am always saddened to see revisionist historians judging people in the past by our standards today. It was a harsh, unforgiving time. I do take exception to the statement that the Mongols conqured the known world. A large part of Europe they did not conquer. They did not conquer any of Africa thanks to the Mamalukes in Egypt. I actually am more impressed with the Vietnamese. They managed to keep themselves independant from the Chinese for hundreds of years and defeated a huge mongol invading army. In this century they have defeated the French, Americans and Chinese alone.

Here's a good article:
http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/9.htm
In 1225 the Tran family, which had effectively controlled the Vietnamese throne for many years, replaced the Ly dynasty by arranging a marriage between one of its members and the last Ly monarch, an eight-year-old princess. Under the Tran dynasty (1225-1400), the country prospered and flourished as the Tran rulers carried out extensive land reform, improved public administration, and encouraged the study of Chinese literature. The Tran, however, are best remembered for their defense of the country against the Mongols and the Cham. By 1225, the Mongols controlled most of northern China and Manchuria and were eyeing southern China, Vietnam, and Champa. In 1257, 1284, and 1287, the Mongol armies of Kublai Khan invaded Vietnam, sacking the capital at Thang Long (renamed Hanoi in 1831) on each occasion, only to find that the Vietnamese had anticipated their attacks and evacuated the city beforehand. Disease, shortage of supplies, the climate, and the Vietnamese strategy of harassment and scorchedearth tactics foiled the first two invasions. The third Mongol invasion, of 300,000 men and a vast fleet, was also defeated by the Vietnamese under the leadership of General Tran Hung Dao. Borrowing a tactic used by Ngo Quyen in 938 to defeat an invading Chinese fleet, the Vietnamese drove iron-tipped stakes into the bed of the Bach Dang River (located in northern Vietnam in present-day Ha Bac, Hai Hung, and Quang Ninh provinces), and then, with a small Vietnamese flotilla, lured the Mongol fleet into the river just as the tide was starting to ebb. Trapped or impaled by the iron-tipped stakes, the entire Mongol fleet of 400 craft was sunk, captured, or burned by Vietnamese fire arrows. The Mongol army retreated to China, harassed enroute by Tran Hung Dao's troops.

I really think the Vietnamese should be included in Civ as a playable nation. Fascinating history with some great leaders, male and female.
I guess the guerilla tactic never fail to work in jungle. It is just too easy to hide in the jungle. I guess Civ4 should have units with defensive bonus of 100% in jungles. I doubt horses would be effective at all in jungle warfare. If the Mongolians were to lost their mobility, they would not have any advantage. Also, evacuating entire city was workable only for a small city such as Hanoi. Imagine major civilized cities getting evacuated, all the culture would be lost.

I see a lot of complaining about the Vietnamese tactics. Well, have a look in the Stories section of this forum. A lot of them seem to be called, "Just win baby". The Vietnamese did just that. They "just won". The Mongols were outfought and outsmarted. Whether you like it or not, it's a fact. ;)

Tactics that involve not being able to fight and have to hide, encore for their bravery! In actuality, they would have gotten broken in half vs a Mongol -_-)