>>538881
I read this, there was some ok stuff in here but theres a shit ton of revisionist history about Genghis Khan not killing that many people.

I mean, all of those contemporary chroniclers tearing their hair out because of witnessing hundreds of thousands massacred across different continents and cultures must of all been making it up right?

>>538891

While the Mongols killed a lot of people, medieval chroniclers are known to exaggerate death tolls either to make the side they support seem more bad ass or to make the side they don't support seem more evil.

Most deaths caused by the Mongols were probably caused by their destruction of infrastructure, not simply their slaughtering people with swords

>>538881
>dude the mongols are so cool XD
Garbage.

>>538881
It's a lot more well-researched and well-documented and WELL-WRITTEN than most people seem to want to admit. It's a damned adventure story.

Some of it's claims sound incongruous to the layman's understanding of the subject, and the ancient world in general. So the book gets attacked from two directions: the profane and uninitiated attack it for being revisionist because it presents information they think they're familiar with in a way they're not used to viewing it: from a Mongol perspective. And it's also attacked by the initiated Historians because most of them can't write anywhere near as well as Weatherford and quite frankly, he makes a lot of people look bad.

Weatherford moved to Mongolia, immersed himself in the language, History, and culture, and he was very lucky to be given access to the Secret History of the Mongols, which had been completely lost to the outside world for centuries, and which was nearly destroyed by the Communists. It was preserved for future generations at the cost of lives.

I highly recommend people check out this lecture given by the author:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v81_hm8T92c

I feel that this lecture addresses much of the criticism laid against Weatherford's research.

>>538891
Yeah, I don't remember reading anything about that at all.

No one denies that Genghis Khan killed millions, that isn't under debate.

The only point of debate is whether or not Genghis Khan's tactics were calculated to prevent further casualties by making capitulation to the Mongols without a fight the only sane option.

The Mongols actually had very strict rules of engagement. If you surrendered without a fight, you never suffered, and Mongol soldiers were put to death for violating the Khan's protection.

>>539164
>If you surrendered without a fight, you never suffered, except when you did
Read a book nigger. Mongols violated surrender agreements left and right.

I read it in grade 9 and thought it was bad back then. I am 25 now.

>>539213
Such as?
The mongols would have had no reason to violate surrender agreements; part of their strategy was to show that capitulation meant survival, while opposition meant complete and total annihilation.

>>539864

Didn't Genghis punish Mongols who broke the agreement not to harm the lives or property of those who surrendered?

>>538881
Awful its only one step above Gavin Menzies works, its historical revisionism at its worst. Something which is confirmed by his later works which argued that all the Mongol leaders were incompetant boobs and that their wives were the real power and brains behind them. This book surprisingly wast as well revived in Mongolia as his first.

>>539864
They would royally fuck up places that didnt produce its quota of food and men. Hence technically not breaking their surrender agreements but comming darn close

>>541241
Thats not breaking a surrender agreement. It actually fits with their system of conquest pretty well.
That said, lets not take all this to mean the Mongols weren't brutal fucks. Because they were.

>>538881

I remember enjoying the read, and coming away feeling like I'd learned something definite, not having known anything about Genghis before: why the Mongols are hated in western Asia, how he had four sons IIRC but was so busy conquering that he never raised them. I also liked the bombed-out Soviet imagery of these rallying places where they didn't wan't Mongols to rally around national identity, their Khan.

However it was a long time ago, and much of the rest of the thread seems dubious as to the work's historical quality. I went to college up the road from where this guy teaches/was teaching at the time, and he came by and lectured one day.

>>538881
I liked it desu, the asspain it's causing is fun too.
>hey guys the mongols didn't kill millions of people per city because there weren't that many people, but they probably killed hundreds of thousands each time
>REVISIONIST TRASH, MONGOL APOLOGISTS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE