Mongolia: A great empire or waves of barbaric hordes?

[Hygro]

There's Ottomans, Byzantines, Hittities.... surely those are closer than Mongols.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hittities....

They were a civ in CivIII, not sure if they kept being there later on

 

[innonimatu]

I can agree with the argument that the Mongols set back civilization across Asia by centuries. I recall someone arguing that they even changed whole ecosystems because of the way they depopulated vast regions.

Civilization has historically been about cities. One thing the civ simulation got right. And the mongols destroyed quite a few great ones.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's a value judgement, though. It's saying that the Mongols were a bad thing for the sort of people we like/identify with. I agree that we do normally take 'civilisation' to be tied up with cities, farming and so on, but that's not the only possible way to cut the cake.

 

[Agent327]

I can agree with the argument that the Mongols set back civilization across Asia by centuries.

That's not just a value judgement, but rather a bit of a bold statement.

 

[innonimatu]

That's a value judgement, though. It's saying that the Mongols were a bad thing for the sort of people we like/identify with. I agree that we do normally take 'civilisation' to be tied up with cities, farming and so on, but that's not the only possible way to cut the cake.

True. But as you said, those who comment on history in any way cannot really be impartial. The best I can is explain (very succinctly in this case) why I make a judgment.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I can agree with the argument that the Mongols set back civilization across Asia by centuries.

what does "setting back civilisation by [units of time]" mean?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Wasn't it the Mongols who sacked Baghdad and ended Harun al-Rashid's "golden age"? I'd call that "setting civilization back", although I wouldn't be able to quantify it.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I wouldn't to be honest

I feel like the only thing that really sets the mongols apart is the large scale of their conquest success, and how far they went

 

[innonimatu]

what does "setting back civilisation by [units of time]" mean?

It is true that we do not know how history would have proceeded without the mongols. But we do know that there were big cities that were destroyed by their wars of expansion. And that centuries after new big cities were built on the same areas. That is as close as I can get to a justification to say that a war "set back civilization" by centuries.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but (to fire an example from the hip) the Mongol conquests also meant the flow of trade between East and West, bringing technology to Europe that wouldn't have reached there for several centuries otherwise. Does the one cancel out the other? At best it's complicated, and at worst it's getting close to meaningless. How does Venice's Golden Age weigh against Baghdad's, put as bluntly as possible?

 

[Absolution]

I started reading the earlier posts and stopped when I noticed you all don't make the difference between "were the mongols a great empire" and "were the mongols a civilized state".

It has much to do with the vast territory they took control of in such a short period of time.
I don't know much about the Mongolian society itself, but I guess the core areas of the Mongol empire indeed functioned in a specific cultural / institutional way.
The manic burn of Persian science books or on the other hand the lack of influence they had in other places they ruled was probably a matter of distance, and lack of interest of the Khanate in what happens in that distance.
This is, maybe, the difference between them and the comparable Sassanids or Romans, but it doesn't have to be a measure criteria for a non-barbaric country, and possibly not for an empire (in the non-Imperial sense of the word, just like Portugal could have been referred to as an empire).

Another observation could be made through the split Khaganates. Of the little I know, those Asian states functioned in a more centralized cultural and institutional way than their mother Mongol Khanate.
That is, due to smaller territory, longer time of holding it, and obvious high level of care or interest of the rulers to what was going on in their territory.
In a metaphoric way, I think it can be said that the Mongols themselves had, kind-of, thought of all the "not an empire" / "barbaric hordes" claims you all have mentioned, and so the more "culture/region dedicated" Khaganates was their solution.

 

[JohannaK]

That is a teleological assessment that doesnt really take into account how the former became the latter or the causes of such a change.

 

[Absolution]

That is a teleological assessment that doesnt really take into account how the former became the latter or the causes of such a change.

I probably didn't explain myself well enough.
Natural selection works the same way either - Polar bears didn't make a decision to turn white, they just became this during the generations. The process and the actual reasons don't matter - the outcome is , obviously, successful for their living in those places, and was metaphorically a "good idea" for them to take.
Same with the division of the Mongol empire, regarding it's definition as a real country. Isn't it?

This is, of course, to explain that a if divided regimes made the difference, it is much more likely that the issues mentioned in this thread "against" the Mongol empire are due to distance and some kind of neglect.

 

[innonimatu]

Yes, but (to fire an example from the hip) the Mongol conquests also meant the flow of trade between East and West, bringing technology to Europe that wouldn't have reached there for several centuries otherwise. Does the one cancel out the other? At best it's complicated, and at worst it's getting close to meaningless. How does Venice's Golden Age weigh against Baghdad's, put as bluntly as possible?

I wouldn't credit Venice's Golden Age on the mongol empire. Venice made much of its wealth trading first with Byzantium for indian, se-asian and chinese goods that flowed to Egypt by sea, then with the arabs that took over those routes. Most merchandise came across the Indian Ocean, to ports in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. The spice trade, none of it came through the Silk Road.

Imho the Silk Road as an historic avenue for trade is way overrated. There was trade passing there, but it simply could not be high-volume even by ancient standards. The logistics didn't allow it, the terrain was too harsh. The mongols could not change that.

 

[Kyriakos]

Mongolia: great empire, or greatest land empire?

 

[Yeekim]

If you had read a bit of history, you'd have known that the unnecessary destruction caused by Mongolian hordes doesn't even touch the necessary destruction other empires caused to reach their purpose...

Suppose we agreed with that for the sake of an argument... would it disqualify them as "civilization" though?
Most brutal, ruthless and bloodthirsty of them mayhaps, but a civilization nonetheless?

 

[Traitorfish]

I can agree with the argument that the Mongols set back civilization across Asia by centuries. I recall someone arguing that they even changed whole ecosystems because of the way they depopulated vast regions.

Civilization has historically been about cities. One thing the civ simulation got right. And the mongols destroyed quite a few great ones.

There's an argument that a large number of small but commercially vibrant cities played a greater role in the emergence of the modern world than a handful of great princely capitals, which were often a net drain on economic activity, as court aristocracies poured resources into grandiose competitive displays of status. We call these cities "great" because of one of the often unintended side-effects of aristocratic indulgence was art and intellectualism, and if we're more practically-minded, because they sometimes give rise to genuinely sophisticated administrative systems, but none of that is sufficient to produce modernity.

"Civilisation" isn't just the existence of a few grand cities, it's the structuring of economic and social life around cities, and that's not something that was very developed in the pre-Mongol world outside of a few regions, or at least not enough so that the destruction of large princely centers was a catastrophe rather than just an inconvenience for the greater mass of people. Major cities were primarily centers of civil and military administration, of aristocratic culture, and of luxury-trades, and as important as those things were, the world could mostly keep rumbling on without them.

 

[plarq]

As far aw we know, Renaissance was in Italy.

Had Mongols not spread out and devour Central Asia and Middle East, would there be an Islamic Renaissance? Highly unlikely, given that the first Golden Age of Islam had already passed. After Mongols destruction, there would still be things like Timurid Renaissance and the rise of Osman. Basically, Mongols did less damage to Middle East than Romans to Carthage.