The Pros And Cons Of Barbarians

Barbarism can be defined as “cruel and violent behavior”. (Merriam Webster) It is a term used to describe anything that is uncivilized. But what is considered as barbaric, and what is considered civilized? Who has the power to decide? The answer to these questions varies from person to person. Similarly, the idea that the Mongols (whose reign was from 1206 C.E. to 1368 C.E.) were simply destructive barbarians is also inconsistent. Not everyone believes this to be true—it is an on-going debate. Those who say the Mongols were barbarians rightfully say so, due to the various, harsh practices and methods of conquests carried out by them. However, they committed such actions with further purpose in mind. A barbarian would do the opposite—spread violence, kill, and nothing else. The Mongols, in fact, …show more content…
First, with the exception a few, Mongol men joined the army and began training from a young age. Thus, they developed experience that could help them on the battlefield. Second, they were skilled horseman. Most armies have a few select soldiers placed on horses, referred to as the “cavalry”. However, with the Mongols, this was not the case. Much of the army consisted of soldiers on horseback. This made getting in and out of the field swift and easy. In addition, enemies could not pursue Mongols for too long, as they were not used to the long ride home on horseback. Thirdly, the use of the composite bow by the Mongols was an extreme disadvantage for enemies. They had more power and range than a longbow, up to one hundred yards. Furthermore, soldiers would be firing arrows while riding horses with deadly accuracy, avoiding close-range sword fights and reducing casualties. Fourthly, their disregard for common war rules and complete destruction of conquered lands aided in the growth of the empire. Common war rules were broken. For example, ceasefires during the night were not practiced. This was to tire the enemy out by preventing them from sleeping. Complete destruction