The Conquerors

Every so often over the course of history, an exceptional leader blindingly outshines his fellow men and undertakes a course of action that leaves a permanent imprint upon the future. Two such men that will never be forgotten are Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan themselves. The men, swaths of land, and resources these men trampled underfoot and held in the palm of their hand have very few if any times been matched. Both conquerors and their empires exemplified similar levels of brutality and tolerance, and though both failed to last, they both exemplified some of the greatest single-handed conquests and birthings of empires in history.

Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan come from very different backgrounds. Being born to King Philip of Macedon, Alexander had a somewhat better start to his empire. As Alexander rode over Persia and Asia, not only did he allow local populaces to retain their culture and religion, he even adopted practices of the people he encountered, much to the chagrin of his own. Similarly, Genghis Khan was relatively tolerant of any culture that his conquest encountered, his people even adopting and integrating into their own other cultures’ practices as they spread across Asia. Both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan’s empires ruled firmly but made plenty of allowances for the original values of the cultures they subjugated.

While both empires displayed relative tolerance in certain cases, when met with resistance, neither regime faltered when it came to responding with far greater murderous ferocity than their enemy. Alexander the Great himself, during the siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre, he reportedly crucified more than 2,000 survivors on the beach and selling 30,000 more into slavery, not to mention the 6,000 battle casualties.

Though Alexander was brutal, brutality cannot be matched when it comes to the inhumanity of the Mongols. A rare survivor, Ibn al-Althir describes in great detail the atrocities the infamous Mongol hordes committed while on rampage across the entirety of Asia. The Mongols “spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes.”¹ From the perspective of the conquered, the Mongols appeared to have no morals, “and regard nothing as unlawful, for they eat all beasts…, nor do they recognize the marriage-tie,”² furthering their countenance as other-worldly. When it comes to sheer atrocity, both conquerors vie for a strong case, but the Mongol hordes beat out Alexander the Great’s army every time.

As if history repeats itself, we constantly see certain individuals in history transcend their fellows and become a driving force behind a cause that is perpetuated by their followers. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan both exemplify such an individual with their charisma and pure leadership capability. In terms of the characteristics of the empires, both offered relative independence for those who acknowledged their superiority, but when met with intransigence, the consequences for the perpetrators were bore from extreme obduracy, mercilessness, and pure barbarism. Such men above the rest must be acknowledged and learned from.

—Gregory Mathias
Word Count: 506

^{1, 2}Al-Althir, Ibn. The Perfect History. 1225

Is the Navy Actually a Confucian Bureaucracy???

The Confucian bureaucratic system of giving prestigious positions to those that score well on Confucian literacy tests is actually quite similar to the process by which the United States military conducts promotions and job placement. Both systems are overall quite successful in offering the best jobs to the best candidates, but they differ across a few fundamental principles. In one of his books The Analects, Confucius urges a young student to “Collect much information, put aside what is doubtful, repeat cautiously the rest; then you will seldom say what is wrong…With few mistakes in what you say and few regrets for what you do, your career is made.”^[1] Confucianism heavily stressed the power and necessity of knowledge for those in positions of power. This was made evident by the literacy exams that tested potential candidates’ knowledge on the books of Confucianism, and the higher someone scored on these exams the better their chances of holding a position. This system would work nicely in a perfect world where everyone had equal opportunity to study Confucian literature, but as Welty points out, “most Chinese, by reason of poverty, were unable to learn Confucian literature,” therefore those in the higher social classes had an advantage when it came to studying for these literacy exams.^[2] In practice, the Confucian system successfully ensured that public office holders were very knowledgeable and competent, but the advantage was clearly held by those who could afford to study for such exams.

I believe that the United States military uses a new and improved Confucian bureaucratic approach to promotion and job placement. The standard procedure for advancement in the military, specifically the Navy, is to study certain material about your job and be tested on that material in the same way Confucius believed in. Sailors take these advancement tests and apply for promotion, and as it turns out those that score higher have a better chance of being promoted in that application cycle. All of this is nearly identical to the Confucian system. The fundamental difference in the traditional Confucian system and the modern American military is that the American military not only stresses the importance of knowledge but also the need for a strong and competent leadership ability in its service members. When being considered for promotion, Sailors are evaluated for how they have led in the past and how their past experiences have shaped who they are. This ensures that Sailors are not just knowledgeable but also competent leaders. The other benefit of the military is that you do not have to worry about everyone having an equal opportunity for advancement. Those at the same level make the same amount of money and have the same benefits, so when it’s time to be considered for promotion, no one has an unfair advantage over someone else in regards to preparing for advancement exams. The Confucian bureaucracy is great in theory, but the American military has instituted a similar, more refined system that is more fair and practical.

Andrew Mitchell

Word Count: 512

^[1] Confucious- The Analects

^[2] Paul Thomas Welty- The Asians: Their Heritage and Their Dynasty

ISIS the new Mongols?

The thought of the “Modern Mongols” is an interesting one. When thinking about the quick rise to power, brutality, and relatively short lived empire, the modern equivalent that comes to mind is ISIS. Yes, ISIS is not nearly as tolerant or fluid as the Mongols, but I do believe that there are similarities in the regimes. The ISIS threat rose relatively quickly, and before the United States knew it, they controlled much of the areas we were operating in. Much like the Mongols, the Islamic State took over their new area by storm, and ruled it with an iron fist. ISIS quickly took over much of the Middle East by using very similar techniques as the Mongols did. Mass brutality and savagery were the way that ISIS manipulated local populations to become obedient to them. ISIS is obviously a radicalized form of Islam, and they are very devout and set in their ways. Any people group that came in contact with ISIS who refused to conform to their policies and strict rule faced decapitation and murder of their family. The Mongols on the other hand, were quite tolerant of other ways of life in the areas that they came to control.

In relative time of rule for an empire, the Mongols were relatively short lived. They ruled for less than a century, but in comparison to other dynasties of that time, this is a small amount of time. The Islamic State is similar in this respect as well. ISIS has essentially been eliminated in the past month, marking the end of their large scale rule over much of the Middle East. Small factions still remain, but the bulk of the ruling state has been eliminated, less than 10 years after their main push for power. The pace at which warfare moves today, this is a relatively short time frame for a regime to be in power. Mechanization, air warfare, and increased intelligence agencies and technology has greatly decreased the average length of a war. These are all reasons that ISIS fell to the power of the U.S. and Coalition forces so quickly, but in comparison, I think that their time in power is comparable to the Mongols considering the time frame in which power moves in this day and age. Additionally, the way in which power slipped away is similar. For the Mongols, their downfall was due to an internal struggle. When Kahn died, the power vacuum created trouble within the internal politics of the regime. Due to this lack of strong leadership and no declared leader, the Empire fell. The fall of the Islamic State is not too different from that of the Mongols. Many regimes have faced similar fates over the years, and many more with have to struggle with it in the future. After increased casualties of high level bombings and military attacks from the U.S. and coalition forces, the leadership began to fall within the State. The internal struggles that were created by the power vacuum, coupled with the crushing force of the U.S. coming down on them, ISIS was soon to fall.

LaRue: 520

Education and Power

China, as the world knows it today, is a homogeneous and traditional country. Searching in its past, however, China saw many shifts with differing dynasties. Each dynasty brought new ideas and ways of being to the people in China. However, there was one continuity in Chinese culture throughout all the changes: Confucianism. Many of the ruling dynasty put the power into the hands of Confucian scholars who have proved their worth through time and tests, creating a bureaucracy.

An advantage of staffing a bureaucracy with scholars is that those people place an emphasis on different parts of society. In general, there will be a larger emphasis on education and the arts. This emphasis helped educate the common people in a different sense — it influenced their morals. Confucian scholars advocated simplistic values compared to luxuries, so society had a balance of people working in their niches and creating only what they need to survive. On the other hand, merchants sometimes promoted luxury goods.

While having a scholar-based bureaucracy provides many advantages, there are also disadvantages. A problem with this type of bureaucracy is that the people who are educated have the power. It makes it more difficult for a wider variety of people to assume power. These scholars have to take many exams, the highest being the “jinshi” exam (Ancient). There was an extremely heavy emphasis on education and literacy. Another difficulty with the relationship between the bureaucracy and Confucianism is the fact that the tests were based on Confucian literary texts. This was a self-fulfilling prophecy to create more power for Confucian scholars. When the Confucian scholars assumed power, there were disagreements between them and political leaders. Politicians did not appreciate moral values being projected onto them, something that is seen in modern society as well.

In modern-day America, the more educated advance more in their careers. Similar to China, this has advantages and disadvantages. It is positive that America is able to have leaders who are more educated and have more knowledge on certain topics. On the other hand, these qualifications seem to only be reached by certain groups of people. Once again, this makes the leadership less diverse. This emphasis on education spreads through all aspects of life. Relating to the Navy, officers struggle advancing beyond certain ranks without seeking higher education. Most of the world sees this growing emphasis on education and power.

The world has always been changing. In regards to China, a prevalent theme mixed with the changes of different ruling parties and dynasties has been Confucianism. Chinese bureaucracy was often staffed with Confucian scholars who excelled in literary exams. Modern-day society still sees this emphasis today with highly-educated people in power.

Corinne DeSpain

Word count: 446

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1335/the-civil-service-examinations-of-imperial-china/

Mongol Empire and Nazi Regime

Harrison Goodrich

3/31/19

HH215 Blog #5

Professor Sagstetter

Mongol Empire and Nazi Regime

The Genghis Khan led Mongol Empire will remain one of history’s most brutal regimes. Khan’s brilliance in leadership and battlefield tactics, coupled with a mythical level of brutality, led to a regime that encompassed the area between the Baltic States and China’s East Coast on a map. In comparison, there is only one other regime in history that is comparable to the speed of which the Mongol Empire spread with and the terrors they brought with to innocent people. That regime would be none other than the infamous Nazi Empire, led by the tyrannical Adolf Hitler until they were rightly destroyed in 1945. The Nazis also spread across their continent with ferocity and distributed copious amounts of hate and unwarranted violence. While the end to the Nazi and Mongolian Empires came from different reasons, they maintained their power in similar ways.

Up until Genghis Khan’s death in 1227, the Mongol Empire’s power and reach spread across most of Asia. They accomplished this feat in only nineteen years. The Mongols were far more skilled militarily than their adversaries and they leaders knew how to craft loyalty in different tribes so that their reach would be widespread. The Nazis also managed to spread over 40% of Europe over the twelve years they had power. During those years, the Nazi Empire managed to murder over twelve million people. Similarly to the Mongols, the Nazis created loyalty to those outside of their regime through fear. If you opposed either regime or helped the enemy, you wouldn’t want to make plans for next weekend. The Nazis also appeared to be on the winning side of the second World War and it is only natural for humans to cave into their survival instincts and back the immoral side. The survival instinct can also explain why so many tribes supported the Khan-led Mongol Empire, they simply didn’t want to die by opposing a powerful regime with no history of mercy.

Like the Mongols, the Nazis also met their end and no longer have a place in the modern era. The Mongol Empire fell because there was no clear replacement in leadership after the death of Genghis Khan. Opposing leaders split the empire up and eventually they were too weak to control all of the terrain the had accumulated. The Nazis fell because Allied powers decided to put an end to their reign of terror and genocidal tendencies.

Word Count: 417

Mongols and Nazis

An expansive and feared regime led by one man whose charisma and leadership united a nation and created a world power known by all. This statement applies to several countries throughout history, but two in particular come to mind. First is the Mongol Empire which reigned throughout Asia for roughly 200 years from 1200-1400. The Mongolian empire was unified under the influence of Genghis Khan who radicalized the military and the technology that they used creating an environment which allowed for the rapid expansion of the empire. The brutality of the Mongolians was also well known. As described in The Perfect History by Ibn al-athir the Mongol hordes were more fearsome than the antichrist himself. Al-athir states that “…these spared none, slaying men and women and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babies”.[1] This description strikes fear and because it came from a direct victim of the attack, it is clear to see that the idea of the Mongol empire created a sense of psychological warfare, which only strengthened the fear of the Mongols and the therefore the success of Mongolian attacks. The Mongols were such a fear-inducing group of people that even al-athir claims that the events are “so horrible that I shrank from ever recording it”.[2] Unlike prior empires, the Mongols relied on fear as a primary means of expansion and control. This is similar to the fear that the Nazis in 1940s Germany used to control certain populations and peoples.

One of Adolf Hitler’s characteristics that helped him rise to power was his charm and ability to unite people. This is much like Genghis Khan who’s ability to unite an entire nation together was a powerful tool that led to the strength of the Mongols. Much like the Mongols, the Nazis believed that those who did not stand with them, were standing against them and must be eliminated. For the Nazis, the main opponent who they viewed as being against them was the Jewish. Hitler promoted the Jews as the cause of all of Germany’s problems which created a hostile environment for them to live in. Because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, a similar environment of fear was created for many people other than Jews. People became fearful of speaking out against the Nazis because those that did disappeared. Much like the Mongols, Nazis used this fear as a means of expansion and because of that a small Nazi empire was created throughout Europe. Even to this day, many of the crimes that the Nazis partook in are not believed by some because it is difficult to believe something so terrible could occur. This is nearly identical to some of the statements made by al-athir about how he struggled to have the heart to write about what the Mongols did.

-Brett Eckert

Word Count: 482

[1] A Perfect History, Google Drive folder

[2] Ibid

The British and Mongolian Empires

When we think of the British, we often think of adjectives such as “proper” and “civilized”, but the British Empire was far from that. Despite being the root of much of modern civilization, including the United States, the British Empire founded itself on principles of oppression, racism, and cruelty, similar to those of the Mongolian Empire.

For example, the British Empire began with relatively innocent exploration and the desire to discover more of the world, but this soon led to domination over lands explored. Beginning with the Caribbean, the British established a plantation economy of sugar cane, which relied heavily on slaves from Africa, many of whom died simply from brutal conditions during transit.[1] Slave labor was quick to spread to the Americas, where they continued to experience abuse and inhumane treatment. Despite the outlaw of the slave trade in Britain in 1807, its horrendous effects are analogous to those of the Mongolian Empire and their senseless “slaying of women and men and children”[2]. Much like the Mongol treatment of the Chinese, Arabs, and Indians, the British employed a system of controlled aggression in which they supported those they conquered, with the caveat that they offer unconditional support to the crown.

Similarly, the British and Mongolian Empires spawned the two largest empires in history. Accomplishing such a feat is no easy task, and each was able to do so through sheer brutality and control over those they came across. An example of this in the British Empire was their assertion of power over the indigenous people of North America. Their treatment of Native Americans was similar to that of Africans in that they aimed “’to compel them to “drudgery, work, and slavery,’ so English colonists could live ‘like Soldiers upon the fruit of their labor.’”[3] These malignant practices are identical to the Mongol practices in China, “destroying them [villages] and slaying most their inhabitants, of whom none escaped save a small remnant.”[4] Despite existing several hundred years apart, the actions by each empire clearly demonstrate the foundation of violence used to establish power.

At a first glance, it may not seem like the British Empire is even remotely comparable to the Mongolian Empire, but they share many commonalities such as use of oppression and violence. In the modern era, we often completely neglect the wrongdoings of the British Empire, and think only of atrocities committed by regimes like Mongolian Empire and other authoritarian regimes. However, despite all effort to disregard wrongdoings of Western countries like Britain, we cannot not forget the negative impact it had on millions of people around the world.

— Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 456

[1] http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/colonial/indians/

[2] Class Google Folder, Frameworks Crisis of Mongol Age: 1200 to 1400

[3] http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/colonial/indians/

[4] Class Google Folder, Frameworks Crisis of Mongol Age: 1200 to 1400

Was Christianity Inevitable?

Mankind has, for its entire existence, found a higher power to look up to and deem responsible for the workings of the universe that they do not understand. From ancient tribal people worshiping the sun and the rain, to the Greeks and Romans worshiping gods and goddesses with more human visages, religion has permeated and defined every culture. In the last two thousand years, one religion has risen above the rest and maintained power across the world. Christianity is the religion of our world and dozens of generations that have come before us; but how did this happen? What caused a simple splinter group of Jews to build a religion that was, and still is, so powerful was the workings of Constantine, the great Roman Emperor.

Christianity began through the work of Jesus of Nazareth, whose story as the Son of God is universally known. The religion itself, however, was an immensely complicated subject for the Roman Empire for many years, as persecution by the Jews and other religious groups was rampant. This went on until Constantine battled Maximinus at the Battle of Milvian Bridge.[1] From this battle came two very important events. First was when “in [Constantine’s] sleep the Christ of God appeared to him,” and told him that he would win if he fought under the banner of Chi Rho, the symbol of Christianity and Jesus.[2] Second was Constantine’s victory, which allowed him to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. This event, this simple battle at the Melvian Bridge, was the most important moment for Christianity. If Constantine had lost or been killed in the battle, Christianity very well could have fizzled out like so many other religions before and after it. This crucial historical event drastically changed the future of the world, but Constantine did not end his campaign there. Due to the events that transpired in his dreams, he converted to Christianity and began to promote it across the Empire.[3] His most notable action in this regard was his Edict of Milan, passed in 313 AD, that stated that anyone “who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation.”[4] This made Christianity into an official religion of the Roman Empire, an effort to end the persecution of Christians by the Jews and other religious groups. Constantine also incentivized the conversion of the populace to Christianity, providing tax breaks to farmers and other groups and giving soldiers Sundays off.

Constantine’s interesting story and efforts throughout his rule as Emperor were absolutely instrumental in the success of Christianity in both the short and long run. Without his actions, Christianity surely would have disappeared into the mist. It seems that this fact is overlooked in the history books, but he was the most influential instrument in the dominance of Christianity in the Roman Empire and beyond. Christianity was not inevitable; it grew through hard work and the power of the throne.

– Cyrus Malek-Madani

Word Count: 505

[1] “The Battle of the Milvian Bridge.” History Today. Accessed March 31, 2019. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/battle-milvian-bridge.

[2] Eusebius: The Conversion of Constantine. Chapter XXIX.

[3] “The Battle of the Milvian Bridge.” History Today.

[4] The Edict of Milan.

Rise of Empires

The Mongol Empire rose out of northern Asia and quickly took control a majority of Asia, Eastern Europe, and began to push into Western Europe before internal strife forced the Mongols to retreat and eventually brought an end to the empire. Genghis Khan conquered the Mongolian tribes and united them under his banner. They then marched throughout Asia conquering as they went, becoming known for their brutality. The Mongols nomadic lifestyle allowed their forces to mobile. Whatever the Mongols needed they brought with them. In The Perfect History, Ibn al-Athir stated, “…they needed no commissariat, nor the conveyance of supplies, for they have with them sheep, cows, horses and the like quadrupeds, the flesh of which they eat, and naught else.” This allowed them to be fast and not impeded by the need for supplies. They conquered swiftly and it was a surprise to many of their enemies. The Mongols built a vast empire, the largest the world had ever seen, in the blink of an eye.

Nazi Germany did something similar in the mid 20th century. At the end of World War I, Germany was decimated economically and left without a military by the Treaty of Versailles. Socially and politically, Germany was left in disarray and many Germans did not know what to do. This instability allowed Adolf Hitler to seize power and plunge the world back into war. Hitler re-established Germany as a military power and used his political power to unite Germany. He conquered the lands surrounding Germany to reunite the German speaking peoples of Europe and then began his conquest of Europe by invading Poland. However, Nazi Germany did so through a new method of warfare called the Blitzkrieg or lightning war. Blitzkrieg was intended to attack and subdue the enemy before they could organize and respond. This relied heavily on German tanks to punch through enemy lines and cause disorder. This can be compared to the Mongols who fought adeptly on horseback. The Mongols could strike fast by riding in on horseback and cause mass disarray, ending the battle swiftly and moving on with their conquests. Nazi Germany conquered and built an empire spanning most of the European mainland in the blink of an eye. However, the German strategy of Blitzkrieg eventually degraded as they got bogged down in Russia and their advance was stalled on both fronts. The fall of the German empire was as swift as its rise. However, it was not due to internal strife, but due to their inability to keep their supply lines intact and a general lack of resources as Germany began to crumble under the intense pressure placed on them by the allies.

The Mongols were able to conquer and hold territory because they used their nomadic lifestyle to their advantage. There had no supply lines their enemies could target so it was impossible to subdue them indirectly. To defeat the Mongols, one had to face them head on in combat and the Mongols were as much warriors as they were brutal. It seemed the only force capable of stopping the Mongols were themselves and they did just that when they were forced to stop their advance into Western Europe because of a crisis of succession. Empires before them had fallen due to internal crisis, and the Mongolian Empire was no different.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 524

Works Cited:Crisis of the Mongol Age, 13.1b:Ibn al-Athir Perfect History

A Couplet of Doom

They captured swaths of territory with unspeakable violence. They struck terror into the hearts of those inhabiting the lands they conquered. No military force could initially counter their advances. Could they be the Mongols? Or are they the Islamic State group? A brief look at the history of the two suggests it is not either, but both.

The Mongols, of course, came first. Around the year 1220 the Mongols swept into the Middle East, leaving behind a swath of destruction that was later recorded by Ibn al-Athir. Athir was utterly horrified by the Mongol conquests: not only did he directly compare them to the Antichrist, he gave the Antichrist a more positive review. Given his testimony that the Mongols “[ripped] open pregnant women and [killed] unborn babies” [1], the repulsed reaction is not terribly surprising. In fact, Athir is so appalled by the atrocities he claims they were “the greatest catastrophe and the most dire calamity…which befell all men…since God Almighty created Adam until now” [1]. Now, Athir had spent time following the armies of Saladin, and was thus no stranger to warfare or violence. For him to be so utterly stunned as to proclaim the worst calamity in the history of mankind reflects the sheer magnitude and ruthlessness of the Mongols.

In late-2014, the United Nations released a report [2] detailing atrocities committed by the Islamic State group in Iraq. According to this report, the Islamic State groups undertook executions, assassinations, and other killings (to include stonings, decapitations, and more), and practiced the use of civilian human shields. They also particularly targeted women and religious leaders and monuments. These examples only scratch the surface of the acts detailed in the 40-page report, but nonetheless one can draw parallels to the acts of the Mongols.

There is some irony in the fact the Mongols persecuted Muslim populations in their conquest, while the conquests of the Islamic State group were motivated by their faith (hence the name, and the goal of creating an independent Islamic state). Still, even the Islamic State group attacked other Muslims, and subjugated them to horrific acts.

The similarities between the two are nevertheless striking. Expanding rapidly, the two both conquered large areas of territory and committed acts of atrocity within their boundaries. The Mongols, however, were more given to tolerance of other people within the lands they conquered. They were open to the existence of several religions concurrently. By contrast, the Islamic State group targeted and persecuted those of even different sects of Islam heavily, not to mention Christians, Jews, and others within the land they conquered.

In the downfall of both, too, there are differences. The Mongol conquest was halted when a succession crisis (like with nearly any empire) forced the advances to halt on the eastern edge of Europe. The Islamic State group, on the other hand, was forced to retreat after a local coalition with international backing (read as: incessant airstrikes from western nations) wrested back control of the conquered lands.

The world was unprepared for the Mongol invasion and never expected anything like it. While the exact form it took may have been unusual, the Islamic State group’s rise was predictable based on regional turmoil and past example. Despite this, the two bear remarkable similarities stretching from their rapid speed of expansion, persecution of those within their borders, and legacy of terror. In the (alleged) words of Mark Twain, “history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 548

Sources:

[1] The Perfect History, Ibn al-Athir c.1225

[2] Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq: 6 July – 10 September 2014 https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf

[3] ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic state?https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html