I watched this thought provoking video and it prompted a few thoughts. Genghis Khan here is presented in two ways. As a misunderstood benevolent despot on the one hand and as a mere bloodthirsty barbarian on the other. But which view is correct? Ultimately he was a barbarian, that no modern apologists can rightly claim otherwise. At best he could be indirectly known as a unifier (it would exaggerating to the extreme and say he was an enlightened ruler).
What led the Mongols to conquer much of the known world? Certainly not a drive for unity and a desire to spread culture! They wanted plunder (and perhaps adventure)! That was fundamental to their conquests. For sure, their practices were barbaric (especially if one believes there are certain immutable moral truths that can't be controverted by time and culture). But, like any people back then the Mongols had their own unique code of justice and positive aspects which improved their conquered domains in a few respects - but that doesn't make Genghis any more enlightened than any other ruler throughout history (one could argue that Hitler did positive things for Germany and therefore try to justify and contextualise his attitudes and actions in the same way as we are doing with the great Khan)! Also, we can't discount the fact that he wanted to hold on to his territory, so why not give the people something to sweeten the deal? With regard to freedom of religion, I'd say that wasn't some enlightened attitude but rather, something closer to indifference as Mongols often held traditionally shamanistic beliefs (being a highly accepting religious position) that would have made them open to other religions.
I conclude that Genghis is certainly more barbarian - opportunistic and power hungry despot - than enlightened ruler!
No comments:
Post a Comment