Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford is a well-written account of the steppe nomad Temüjin on his journey to unify the Mongolian Steppe Nomads. In the process Temüjin, known formally as Genghis Khan, and his successors conquered much of the eastern world in a series of campaigns spanning several centuries. These campaigns left their mark, both good and bad, on the conquered lands and can be seen today in the cultures and ideas of the modern world. Weatherford’s text draws from the Prior to reading the book, I had little knowledge of Genghis Khan. I surmised that he belonged to a dynasty of sorts, inherited his position, and that was historically the greatest of many Mongol leaders. I had not heard of his
…show more content…
He recounts how many of the fanciful overstatements originated as Mongol psychological warfare intended to scare enemies into panic and submission. Weatherford highlights many of the decidedly positive policies of Genghis Khan: “Warriors everywhere have been taught to die for their leader, but Genghis Khan never asked his men to die for him… Unlike other generals and emperors in history who easily ordered hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their death, Genghis Khan would never willingly sacrifice a single one” (p.91). But, in the process glazes over some of the terrible actions of Genghis Khan and his army. Weatherford describes Mongolian conquests from a one-sided perspective, treating the killing, looting, and razing of entire cities as a mere matter of Mongol business. “it did not matter what tactics were used against the enemy or how the battles were fought… Winning by clever deception or cruel trickery was still winning” (p.91) “The Mongols showed little concern for the loss of enemy life so long as it preserved Mongol life” (p.93) These conquests were a matter of business to the Mongols, but that does not make it necessary or right. Mongol conquest had grown beyond unifying the steppe tribes, “In all the centuries of raiding and trading, no leader had brought back to his homeland nearly the amount of goods as Genghis Khan. But vast as the quantities were, …show more content…
When you look past the systematic killing of eleven million people, Adolf Hitler was a terrific leader who led disadvantaged Germany to conquer much of Europe. Alexander the Great took an established Macedon to defeat much of Asia and North Africa through exceptional leadership and strategy. Attila the Hun led his nomadic people to dominate ancient Europe and brought Eastern Rome to its knees. These were great leaders, but they pale in comparison to Genghis Khan, the lone steppe nomad who would grow to command and conquer an immense mobile empire on horseback. Admittedly, his actions were at times ruthless and excessive, and he did kill a considerable amount of people. However, throughout all of this he maintained a strong sense of “self-control, particularly the mastery of pride which he explained, to subdue than a wild lion, and anger, which was more difficult to defeat than the greatest wrestler. He warned them that ‘if you can’t swallow your pride, you can’t lead.’ He admonished them never to think of themselves as the strongest or smartest” (p.124-125), an ideal former and following leaders would scarcely live up to. Genghis Khan warned “against the pursuit of a ‘colorful’ life with material frivolities and wasteful pleasures. ‘It will be easy,’ he explained, ‘to forget your vision and purpose… In that
He recounts how many of the fanciful overstatements originated as Mongol psychological warfare intended to scare enemies into panic and submission. Weatherford highlights many of the decidedly positive policies of Genghis Khan: “Warriors everywhere have been taught to die for their leader, but Genghis Khan never asked his men to die for him… Unlike other generals and emperors in history who easily ordered hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their death, Genghis Khan would never willingly sacrifice a single one” (p.91). But, in the process glazes over some of the terrible actions of Genghis Khan and his army. Weatherford describes Mongolian conquests from a one-sided perspective, treating the killing, looting, and razing of entire cities as a mere matter of Mongol business. “it did not matter what tactics were used against the enemy or how the battles were fought… Winning by clever deception or cruel trickery was still winning” (p.91) “The Mongols showed little concern for the loss of enemy life so long as it preserved Mongol life” (p.93) These conquests were a matter of business to the Mongols, but that does not make it necessary or right. Mongol conquest had grown beyond unifying the steppe tribes, “In all the centuries of raiding and trading, no leader had brought back to his homeland nearly the amount of goods as Genghis Khan. But vast as the quantities were, …show more content…
When you look past the systematic killing of eleven million people, Adolf Hitler was a terrific leader who led disadvantaged Germany to conquer much of Europe. Alexander the Great took an established Macedon to defeat much of Asia and North Africa through exceptional leadership and strategy. Attila the Hun led his nomadic people to dominate ancient Europe and brought Eastern Rome to its knees. These were great leaders, but they pale in comparison to Genghis Khan, the lone steppe nomad who would grow to command and conquer an immense mobile empire on horseback. Admittedly, his actions were at times ruthless and excessive, and he did kill a considerable amount of people. However, throughout all of this he maintained a strong sense of “self-control, particularly the mastery of pride which he explained, to subdue than a wild lion, and anger, which was more difficult to defeat than the greatest wrestler. He warned them that ‘if you can’t swallow your pride, you can’t lead.’ He admonished them never to think of themselves as the strongest or smartest” (p.124-125), an ideal former and following leaders would scarcely live up to. Genghis Khan warned “against the pursuit of a ‘colorful’ life with material frivolities and wasteful pleasures. ‘It will be easy,’ he explained, ‘to forget your vision and purpose… In that