July 13, 2006

The Legacy of Genghis Khan Flash w/ sound Nice introduction to the history of the Mongol empire, as founded by national hero Chinggis Khaan.
posted by Abiezer_Coppe 17 years ago
  • Surely they should be apologising?
  • Great find!! ))))!
  • This is excellent, Abiezer_Coppe!
  • Me like.
  • Thanks, Abiezer! The Met also has a site dedicated to the exhibition which offers another perspective.
  • That's a great resource too islander, thanks. Pleggers, surely nothing to apologise for? No worse than the rest and better than many. And the thing of it!
  • Ahead of the festival, an eight-metre high statue of Genghis Khan was unveiled in Ulan Batur on Monday It proceeded to headbutt the giant gilded rotating statue of Turkmenbashi, thereby possibly affecting the outcome of the World Cup.
  • Ach, Turkmen are the Poles of the middle east. Being invaded/governed and squelched pretty well sums up their history. What I'd really enjoy would be the Mongolian horses and their riders' horsemanship.
  • YES! BEES!! YES!! Lovely, lovely, lovely post! Perfect number of linkies--I can never read enough about the Mongols. Fascinating culture, on the brink of a major crisis Whilst in Turkey, I met a gal stationed at the Consulate in Ulan Bator. The stories she told were absolutely fascinating, but she did say the poverty was incredible, and she wasn't over-enthusiastic about dealing with the political and economic issues.
  • As far as the veneration the Mongols have for the Kahn, it's understandable. He is, after all, their grandfather! Bees, I think next July we should go to the horse races!
  • Here's the thing though about the Khan: He was supposedly extraordinarily brutal. I remember reading somewhere about him exacting retribution by pouring molten silver into the eyes and ears of his unfortunate enemies. There are also stories of mountains of skulls made from the inhabitants of the cities who were not willing to surrender right off the bat. So is it true then that history softens all deeds no matter how evil?
  • So is it true then that history softens all deeds no matter how evil? Not so much that, as the fact that we can admire a man for his accomplishments, despite his personal character and individual cruelty. No doubt great men in the West, such as Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great and Napoleon, had their cruel streaks and committed many crimes of humanity. But how many people, when talking about Ceasar, mention that he had crucified people? Alexander was a harsh leader who at least once executed a subordinate on spurious charges, but what people remember of him is that he conquered most of Asia (which is a little of an exaggeration if you think about it).
  • Wot I like to remember about Alexander is his horse Bucephalus. Whereas Napoleon had an embarassment of riches.
  • That is a nice story. I believe many years later when Bucephalus was quite old, he was kidnapped by some central Asian tribe which wanted to blackmail Alexander. Big mistake.
  • Plegmund: yeah, I think I remember reading about that in Mary Renault's The Persian Boy. Like a good classicist, she has Alexander refer to the horse as "Oxhead" throughout.
  • Bees, I think next July we should go to the horse races! MonkeyHorse meetup!
  • That might actually be where I got it from, PA. I like Mary Renault - much better than that French bloke who's done Alexander recently, whatever his name is.
  • But how many people, when talking about Ceasar, mention that he had crucified people? True! Perhaps one reason why Genghis is not as venerated as some other military geniuses, is that the victims wrote the history books.
  • > French bloke who's done Alexander recently the three-parter? valerio massimo manfredi (italian).
  • Oops. It's a fair cop, guv'nor: Manfredi it is. It's true that JC and Alexander could be brutal at times, but I don't think they went beyond the norm for their day. Genghis set new standards of cruelty, didn't he? Didn't his armies drive the civilian population of the last city they had captured before them, either to fill up defensive ditches with their corpses or to make them fight and be killed by their friends and relations defending the next city? Caesar and Alexander, and I suppose Napoleon, may also have believed they were fighting in the interests of justice and civilisation: Genghis Khan was just out to fuck the world up as much as he could - wasn't he?