Should the mongols be a civilization?

yewsef said:
It is only the Mongols who were Barbaric and destructive and didn't add anything to the world (which seems that everyone agrees with).

The Mongols pretty much brought East and West together. They were conquerors, yes, but then which empire wasn't? As mentioned earlier, they were great facilitators of trade and the spread of ideas. That they facilitated trade and held such an enomrous empire stretching from Europe to Asia was a major catalyst for the later European drive to seek riches in the East. This is somehow not "adding anything to the world"? :confused:

And no, not everyone agrees with you on the Mongols here on that point. Don't assume that we do.
 
I know I'm just a noob here, but I have a debate topic. Should Alexander be a leader in this game? If you think about it, he was just the leader of an army. He didn't preside over new discoveries, built no wonders, didn't even govern. Alexander would just leave the previous governors of provinces he captured in charge. I bring this up because I did a report on him. He was truly on a military leader. He didn't directly contribute anything to the world other than a heavy invasion and a near destruction of several civilizations (the moment he did his "empire" fell apart like a ton of bricks). The Macedonians should really be considered a very powerful barbarian tribe. Sure, the county of Macedonia is still around, but what did Macedonia contribute? All the other leaders in civ had a fixed government and some kind of non-military accomplishment, most if not every leader presided over infrastructure, and I can't think of how the Macedonians were really a civ in the traditional sense.
 
I didn't say they massacred a whole nation, I said I don't remember any nation that did such destruction. Greek controlled the world and they were resisted, they didnt destroy books or massacre people. Roman, Caliphates, Umayyads, Egyptians, Persians..etc

It is only the Mongols who were Barbaric and destructive and didn't add anything to the world (which seems that everyone agrees with).

...

And you come now and say, "why not?" well, our conversation ends here since our prospectives are too different.

Please read some history books. This is an inaccurate, highly biased, and one-sided view of the story. Despite your claim that "everyone agrees with" you, I would say that 99% of historians would strongly disagree. It's not a matter of "perspective", but of presenting an accurate picture of history.

I cannot believe that you are condeming the Mongols based on the destruction of one (admittedly nice) library, as if it is the most important destructive act in the history of the world.
 
I know I'm just a noob here, but I have a debate topic. Should Alexander be a leader in this game? If you think about it, he was just the leader of an army. He didn't preside over new discoveries, built no wonders, didn't even govern. Alexander would just leave the previous governors of provinces he captured in charge. I bring this up because I did a report on him. He was truly on a military leader. He didn't directly contribute anything to the world other than a heavy invasion and a near destruction of several civilizations (the moment he did his "empire" fell apart like a ton of bricks). The Macedonians should really be considered a very powerful barbarian tribe. Sure, the county of Macedonia is still around, but what did Macedonia contribute? All the other leaders in civ had a fixed government and some kind of non-military accomplishment, most if not every leader presided over infrastructure, and I can't think of how the Macedonians were really a civ in the traditional sense.

A "very powerful barbarian tribe"? Alexander is one of the most famous people in history! And he did "rule": few emperors actually "governed" themselves during those times, but rather worked through local governors -- often the rulers that they had just deposed!

Though short-lived, Alexander's empire spread Greek culture (Hellenism) as far as India, leaving Greek cities (often called Alexandria) all over the place. Alexander (or Iskander) was seen as a hero not only for the Greeks and later Europeans, but for Islamic cultures as well.

This whole thread is problematic. If you try to narrow down what is or is not a "civilization", you're going to have a hard time. I've taught world history at a large university as a TA. We didn't even use the word "civilization" because it is so problematic and hard to pin down. (Instead, we used "complex socities", which is hardly better.) My point is that the concept is so subjective, you could easily question the worthiness of every civ in the game on some matter or another. I really don't see the point.
 
The Spanish destroyed the entire cultural history of the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans. They didn't just burn one library, they aggressively tried to stamp out everything the culture ever achieved. As a result, very little is known about those civilizations even today.

Are you going to petition for Spain to be removed from Civilization games now? ;)
 
A "very powerful barbarian tribe"? Alexander is one of the most famous people in history! And he did "rule": few emperors actually "governed" themselves during those times, but rather worked through local governors -- often the rulers that they had just deposed!

He barely ruled. He went conquest/conquest/conquest and when he died his "government apparatus" (haha) died with him. At least the Mongolian state survived GK's death.

BTW I basically mad-libbed the OP's post ;-).
 
And the "American" essentially uprooted the "native American" civ :eek:
 
He barely ruled. He went conquest/conquest/conquest and when he died his "government apparatus" (haha) died with him..

The same could be said for a lot of "rulers" who spent their lives on the battlefield rather than on a throne. And while you might question his "government apparatus", as I said before, it was quite common to rely on provincial governors to run the day-to-day operations of the empire; indeed, it was necessary for a large empire given the difficulty of fast communication. Indeed, Alex simply absorbed the apparatus of the Persian empire he conquered, and I'm pretty sure it lived on under the successor states -- just in three pieces rather than one.

At least the Mongolian state survived GK's death.

Actually, both empires eventually split up into a number of successor states.

BTW I basically mad-libbed the OP's post ;-).

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. ;) It just proves my point that you could make a similar topic about any civ in the game. I personally don't see much need for the Germans myself...
 
What about the unification of China? That was a very important thing for the world. After the Yuan, China never again split into the warring kingdoms that had been the norm since the fall of the Han a millenium before. The closest they ever came to that were the inter-dynastic conflicts- the Ming expulsion of the Han and the Manchu conquest- and the post-Imperial civil war, and those were relatively short defined wars, not ages of disunity like the Warring States or Three Kingdoms periods.

So thanks to the brutal Mongol invasion, China got finally reunited....I just so much admire ur association of ideas. Not to mention the hundreds year old Tang and Song dynasty before Yuan, may i remind u that since the end of mainland civil war in 1949, China has been seperated to communist in mainland and nationalist in taiwan up till now though it is totally no business to do with those barbarian. Well u may think taiwan has been a country since ancient far and I've been brainwashed by some dictatorship, i still feel ur conlusion so ridiculous.
 
So thanks to the brutal Mongol invasion, China got finally reunited....I just so much admire ur association of ideas. Not to mention the hundreds year old Tang and Song dynasty before Yuan, may i remind u that since the end of mainland civil war in 1949, China has been seperated to communist in mainland and nationalist in taiwan up till now though it is totally no business to do with those barbarian. Well u may think taiwan has been a country since ancient far and I've been brainwashed by some dictatorship, i still feel ur conlusion so ridiculous.
I said that warring states had been the norm, that they were the only state China was in. And you know what? They were the norm. For the majority of China's history between the fall of the Han and the Yuan conquest, China was disunified. Yes, the Tang ruled all of China for some time, and the Song ruled a large area, but they lost control of the North to the Jin. My point was that, after the Yuan, China was never split in the same way.
Yes, the whole Mainland/Taiwan thing could count as disunity, but Taiwan is a
rump state, not a serious rival for control of China.
Don't get offended, I was just offering a suggestion. Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't mean you have to act all snarky. If you're still bitter about an invasion that happened over 700 years ago, that's your problem, don't take it out on me.
 
Please read some history books. This is an inaccurate, highly biased, and one-sided view of the story. Despite your claim that "everyone agrees with" you, I would say that 99% of historians would strongly disagree. It's not a matter of "perspective", but of presenting an accurate picture of history.

I cannot believe that you are condeming the Mongols based on the destruction of one (admittedly nice) library, as if it is the most important destructive act in the history of the world.

Since you read history more than I did, what did the Mongols give the world. Enlighten me.
 
The Spanish destroyed the entire cultural history of the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans. They didn't just burn one library, they aggressively tried to stamp out everything the culture ever achieved. As a result, very little is known about those civilizations even today.

Are you going to petition for Spain to be removed from Civilization games now? ;)

I didn't say mongols shouldn't be allowed because they destroyed cities that resisted, that act was barbaric. I am against what the Spanish people did to the new world and I'm against their inquisitors who neutrolized Muslims and Jews and either killed them or converted them to christianity by force. But at least, they have affected the new world and now Mexico speaks Spanish they have their own culture and added a lot to the world. What did the Mongols did, none speaks Mongolian in Baghdad for instance or even have anything to do with the Mongols. Spanish destroyed the Aztecs, look at the world in Mexico and south America now, they all speak Spanish. While the Mongolians in the other hand looted, pillaged, destroyed and now they're back to where they started. Didn't give anything, just warmonger barbarians.
 
since none of us were actually there, I don't think anyone can honestly know what happened back then. Any history that you get back is going to biased no matter what. Every historian had an agenda, or if they didn't have an agenda then the kings/queens,etc they lived under had one. How much history to the contrary of a countries vision would be allowed to survive? There is no such thing as unbiased history.
 
I didn't say mongols shouldn't be allowed because they destroyed cities that resisted, that act was barbaric. I am against what the Spanish people did to the new world and I'm against their inquisitors who neutrolized Muslims and Jews and either killed them or converted them to christianity by force. But at least, they have affected the new world and now Mexico speaks Spanish they have their own culture and added a lot to the world. What did the Mongols did, none speaks Mongolian in Baghdad for instance or even have anything to do with the Mongols. Spanish destroyed the Aztecs, look at the world in Mexico and south America now, they all speak Spanish. While the Mongolians in the other hand looted, pillaged, destroyed and now they're back to where they started. Didn't give anything, just warmonger barbarians.

and its because of the Mongols the Spanish acrtually could take over the world.

as someone said above, ask any historian, ANY, and 90% of them would say the Mongols had an influence on the world.
 
Since you read history more than I did, what did the Mongols give the world. Enlighten me.

But at least, they have affected the new world and now Mexico speaks Spanish they have their own culture and added a lot to the world. What did the Mongols did, none speaks Mongolian in Baghdad for instance or even have anything to do with the Mongols.

You're focusing too much on trying to find "Mongol specific" legacies, rather than looking at the larger picture of what they did. A lot of their accomplishments have already been mentioned in this thread.


  • They forged a massive land empire that was brilliantly managed with fast communication, fair laws, and internal peace.
  • Because of this, they created an opportunity for travel across the Asian continent. Marco Polo and other European merchants would never have made it to China without the Mongols. Given that Columbus sailed to the New World carrying a heavily annotated copy of Polo's travels, it's entirely possible that he would not have even attempted the voyage had he not been lured to China by Polo's accounts. (Interestingly, the two things he underlined most were accounts of trade goods/practices, and the places where local men allowed their wives to sleep with foreign visitors...)
  • They also opened up a way for the transmission of diseases, such as the Black Death. While this may not have been a "good" thing, it had an enormous impact on history. Indeed, the changes to society that the Black Death made in Europe have been credited by some with sparking the rise of Europe in the late middle ages.
  • They changed the course of European diplomatic history, as Christians suddenly realized that there was a powerful empire out there that was at war with Islam. Christian rulers (including the Pope) sent emissaries to strengthen relations with the Mongols, and even tried to create alliances.
  • They left legacy states, such as the Golden Horde (which lasted a long time), the Il-Khanid's in Persia, and even the Mughals in India. As I said before, the Mughals revered their connection with GK, and they lasted until the 19th century, creating some great cultural works along the way (such as the Taj Mahal).

This is just a quick summary. There's a lot more if you take the time to look -- others have discussed their impact on China, for example. Like I said before, you need to focus not on specific cultural things that they did (spreading a language, building a building, etc.) but the impact they had on world history. I cannot see how you can put the Mongols in the same category as generic barbarian tribes.
 
If I'm remembering the situation right, the Mongols did that at Baghdad because when they sent an emissary to the Caliphate there, said emissary was executed and his head was sent back to the Mongol leaders. Baghdad asked for it.

The Mongols had a simple system. If you submit to them peacefully, you live and keep your rights. If you resist, you die. The ruler of Baghdad not only resisted, but he delivered the ultimate insult by killing the Mongol emissary sent to him. He brought about the doom of his own kingdom as a result.

I am sure the Abbasid Caliph didn't kill the messanger, and I think you confuse him with Qutus(Qutuz) Saif Al Din Qutus the leader of Egypt he did kill the messangers of Katabgha because of what they did to Baghdad and because of their message and how it was humiliating. Saif Al Din Qutus killed the Mongolian Messangers to give them a message that he means business and willing to beat these Barbaric Mongolians, which he did. He defeated the Mongolians for the first time in their history in Ain Jalut Battle. :)

He retreived all the conquered city in Sham in 1 month only! the Mongolians ran away to Bukhara!

Both Mamluk and Mongol armies encamped in the Holy Land in July 1260. They finally met at Ain Jalut on September 3, with both sides numbering about 20,000 men. The Mamluks drew out the Mongol cavalry with a feigned retreat, but were almost overwhelmed by the savage Mongol attack. Qutuz rallied his troops for a successful counterattack, along with cavalry reserves hidden in the nearby valleys. The Mongols were forced to retreat, and Kitbuqa was captured and executed. Mamluk heavy cavalrymen were clearly able to beat the Mongols in close combat, something that no one had previously done.

It is important to note that these particular Mamluks had essentially been created to meet the Mongol crisis. The bulk of them were Turkic or Circassian tribesmen sold in Constantinople to the Sultan of Egypt and trained on Mameluke Island in the Nile. They were not only great horsemen themselves, but were familiar with steppe warfare and with Mongol tactics and weapons. After a time, Egypt basically became a country existing to support a military force. This was vital in defending the Holy Land, and doing what no one else had previously done, decisively defeating the Mongols, who never were able to avenge this defeat. Many historians argue that this battle, and the subsequent Japanese defeats of the invading Mongols, marked the beginning of the end of the Mongol Empire, though parts of it would last another 250 years. Ain Jalut and the defeats near Iki Island by the Japanese marked the end of the aura of Mongol invincibility.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut
 
I am sure the Abbasid Caliph didn't kill the messanger, and I think you confuse him with Qutus(Qutuz) Saif Al Din Qutus the leader of Egypt he did kill the messangers of Katabgha because of what they did to Baghdad and because of their message and how it was humiliating. Saif Al Din Qutus killed the Mongolian Messangers to give them a message that he means business and willing to beat these Barbaric Mongolians, which he did. He defeated the Mongolians for the first time in their history in Ain Jalut Battle. :)

actually, he wasn't referring to those guys. think he was reffering to either the ruler of Khrawzism or the Kara-khitai Khanate (can't remember).

and so what if the attack was savage? war is savage.
 
You're focusing too much on trying to find "Mongol specific" legacies, rather than looking at the larger picture of what they did. A lot of their accomplishments have already been mentioned in this thread.


  • They forged a massive land empire that was brilliantly managed with fast communication, fair laws, and internal peace.
  • Because of this, they created an opportunity for travel across the Asian continent. Marco Polo and other European merchants would never have made it to China without the Mongols. Given that Columbus sailed to the New World carrying a heavily annotated copy of Polo's travels, it's entirely possible that he would not have even attempted the voyage had he not been lured to China by Polo's accounts. (Interestingly, the two things he underlined most were accounts of trade goods/practices, and the places where local men allowed their wives to sleep with foreign visitors...)
  • They also opened up a way for the transmission of diseases, such as the Black Death. While this may not have been a "good" thing, it had an enormous impact on history. Indeed, the changes to society that the Black Death made in Europe have been credited by some with sparking the rise of Europe in the late middle ages.
  • They changed the course of European diplomatic history, as Christians suddenly realized that there was a powerful empire out there that was at war with Islam. Christian rulers (including the Pope) sent emissaries to strengthen relations with the Mongols, and even tried to create alliances.
  • They left legacy states, such as the Golden Horde (which lasted a long time), the Il-Khanid's in Persia, and even the Mughals in India. As I said before, the Mughals revered their connection with GK, and they lasted until the 19th century, creating some great cultural works along the way (such as the Taj Mahal).

This is just a quick summary. There's a lot more if you take the time to look -- others have discussed their impact on China, for example. Like I said before, you need to focus not on specific cultural things that they did (spreading a language, building a building, etc.) but the impact they had on world history. I cannot see how you can put the Mongols in the same category as generic barbarian tribes.

All your points you provided doesn't speak "Civilization" and some are bad. You want me to give the Mongolians credit for their conquest, oh yeah I admit they have done an achievement, but calling them a Civilization I've yet to see anything that speaks "Civilization" the Mongolians have done. I asked this question 3 times, and this is the 4th. I hope someone can Enlighten me and tell me more about the Mongolians achievements as a civilization.
 
actually, he wasn't referring to those guys. think he was reffering to either the ruler of Khrawzism or the Kara-khitai Khanate (can't remember).

and so what if the attack was savage? war is savage.

He said that the Abbassid Caliphe of Baghdad killed the Mongolian Messangers, and I think he's confused between the Caliphe and Qutuz.

I don't think Savage word was referring to the "war" part rather than their cause as a conquest as a whole being "savage". I'm willing to accept Mongolia being a Civilization if someone can bring something that has a civilization value about the Mongols.
 
I'm willing to accept Mongolia being a Civilization if someone can bring something that has a civilization value about the Mongols.

read prestermatt's statments very carefully. the Mongols had excellent communications, kept their empire intact with internal peace (without mass murder), were actually very enlightened in allowing freedom of religion, strict but fair justice.
 
Top Bottom