In Defence Of Genghis Khan

If Genghis Khan were white and European, he would likely be hailed as one of the greatest men of all time, standing among the likes of Caesar and Alexander the Great. How about that for an opening line? Here at PRESC Tutoring, we don’t shy away from controversial topics. Censorship isn’t on our agenda. Yet, today’s topic will undoubtedly raise a few eyebrows: how to defend one of the biggest mass murderers in history. Or rather, how to come out in absolute support and try to justify what he did. Let’s see how it goes.

Before we start, a caveat is needed: retrospective justice is the bane of modern historical analysis. It is both arrogant and ignorant to impose so-called “morals” of today on past events or actors who either a) can’t defend themselves or b) would choose not to. The past is a different place, and we cannot, and should not, try to change it. With that in mind, let’s go back to the 12th century, to the steppes of Mongolia.

It is circa 1162, and a woman named Hoelun gives birth to a son, who, legend has it, is born with a blood clot in his hand - a local omen of great terror to come. True or not, this young baby would make an indelible mark on the world, and his name still evokes fear today. His name was Temujin.

Life on the steppes of Mongolia was harsh. The tribe was everything, and not being part of one was essentially a death sentence. This was the fate that befell Temujin and his small family after their father, Yesügei, was betrayed and murdered by his own clan for political gain. Spared from actual execution, Temujin, his mother, and his three brothers were banished to life in the wilderness. Soon after, a fight between Temujin and his elder brother broke out over a stolen fish. In a sign of the future ruthlessness for which he would become known, Temujin murdered his own brother as a warning never to betray the family. As months and years passed, Temujin and his family wandered the grasslands, gradually gathering other vagabonds and stray bandits to join their motley crew.

Mongolia had always been a disjointed nation. Instead of uniting against the external threat of China, the various tribes could never put aside their feuds and blood quarrels to harness the power of a unified state. Temujin, now a young warrior, did just that. His tribe, the Borjigin, defeated the Merkits, Tatars, Kereit, and Naimans, issuing an ultimatum to all others: “Join me and live, oppose me and die.” In 1206, Temujin united the warring tribes and created a unified Mongolian nation. It was around this time that he changed his name to what we now know as Genghis or Chinggis (as is the correct Mongol spelling) Khan, which literally means “Universal Ruler” - a title that certainly takes some chutzpah!

From there, Genghis embarked on a military campaign for the ages. In a 21-year stretch, his armies conquered China and the Khwarezm Empire (which today includes Iran, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and parts of Afghanistan). His descendants went on to conquer Russia, the Middle East, and as far west as Budapest. While the largest empire the world has ever seen was the British Empire, the largest continuous empire was the Mongol Empire.

So, why have the Mongols garnered such a ferocious and negative reputation?

1. Brutality of actions: The Mongols massacred entire towns and cities. It is estimated that 20-40 million people died either directly or indirectly at the hands of the Mongols. Genghis is even believed to have declared himself the "scourge of God," bringing utter destruction to anyone who refused to acknowledge his rule.
2. Cultural vandalism: The Mongols set fire to the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, at the time the greatest library in the world, permanently erasing thousand-year-old scrolls and documents.
3. Mass rape and pillage: While accurate statistics are hard to come by, approximately 0.5% of the worldwide male population today can be traced back to Genghis Khan. In Mongolia, it is believed to be around 8%.

So, how can one even begin to justify defending a civilization that participated in such atrocities?

1. The Mongols were integral to the success of the Silk Roads, the globe’s first great interchange of commerce and trade. This was possible because of the Pax Mongolica, which, after the initial conquests, ushered in a period of peace and stability that allowed commerce and cultural exchange to flourish.
2. Religious tolerance was a key value of the Mongols. While Genghis himself believed in the Sky God Tengri, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others were allowed to keep their faith as long as they remained loyal to the Khan in battle.
3. Meritocracy was central to the Mongol Empire. It didn’t matter if you were a lowly shepherd or the son of a Khan - everyone had an equal opportunity to rise through the ranks based on merit and achievement. 
4. They created an empire-wide postal system (the Yam), which allowed for both efficient governance and trade.

The Mongols were a nomadic people. Later Khans established cities within their Eurasian empire, but for the most part, they were at their happiest and most successful when roaming the steppes. Understanding this is key to understanding their brutality. Throughout most of human history, conflict was often a case of kill or be killed. The Mongols couldn’t afford to leave defeated enemies behind, allowing them to regroup and seek revenge.

Furthermore, as stated in the opening line, the Mongols are considered "barbarians" largely because they were and are misunderstood. They hailed from a land that remains an outlier in global affairs. If we look at other major civilizations and religions, their tactics have been no different. Lest we forget, America dropped two nuclear bombs on civilian populations in Japan, committed genocide against indigenous peoples, and Great Britain invented the concentration camp during the Boer War. No empire is innocent.

Thus, the defense of Genghis rests. History is fascinating and nuanced. While the people of Persia and modern Iraq may (rightly) scoff at this article, it aims to show a side to one of the most iconic men in history that doesn’t have to be agreed with but certainly needs to be understood.