Genghis Khan and the Warriors of the Mongol Empire | Dan Carlin and Lex Fridman

Summary

The transcript discusses the complex legacy of Genghis Khan, exploring whether he was a progressive leader or a destructive force. It delves into the concept of 'historical arsonist,' suggesting that figures like Khan may have been necessary to clear societal stagnation. The conversation also touches on the Mongols' reputation for religious tolerance and their nomadic warrior culture, which gave them a unique military advantage. The discussion questions the portrayal of the Mongol Empire as liberal, arguing that their actions may have been more about control than benevolence.

Takeaways

• 🔥 The debate over whether Genghis Khan should be considered a progressive or an evil destroyer is complex and depends on one's perspective.
• 🌊 Genghis Khan's legacy is often compared to a 'historical arsonist', someone who clears out the old to make way for the new, but this view is not universally accepted.
• 🏰 The Mongol Empire's policies, such as religious tolerance, were more about maintaining stability and control rather than being inherently progressive.
• 🏹 The Mongols' military success was rooted in their nomadic lifestyle and mastery of horse archery, which gave them a unique advantage over settled societies.
• 🌐 Genghis Khan's ability to unite various tribes into a confederacy was a key factor in the Mongol Empire's success, distinguishing them from previous nomadic groups.
• 👥 The Mongol Empire was not homogenous, incorporating many conquered tribes into their ranks, often using them as frontline forces in battles.
• 🎯 The Mongols' approach to religion was pragmatic, aiming to ensure the support of all gods for the Khan's rule, rather than promoting a specific belief system.
• 🏞️ The Mongol Empire's impact on the world was significant, but its portrayal as a force for good is often a retrospective justification rather than a contemporary view.
• 🛡️ The military tactics of the Mongols, including the use of their horse archers and the strategy of using conquered peoples as vanguard, were crucial to their conquests.
• 📚 The historical interpretation of Genghis Khan and the Mongols is complex and involves a blend of history and philosophy, with different historians presenting varied perspectives.

Q & A

What is the debate surrounding the pronunciation of Genghis Khan's name?

The debate is whether it should be pronounced 'Genghis Khan' or 'Chinggis Khan', reflecting different spellings and pronunciations of his name.

What is the 'historical arsonist' sub-theme mentioned in the podcast?

The 'historical arsonist' sub-theme refers to the idea that sometimes a figure or force must come in and clear out societal stagnation, much like a forest fire, to allow for renewal and progress.

How is Genghis Khan viewed in Mongolia and other parts of the world?

Genghis Khan is often viewed positively in Mongolia and some other parts of the world, where he is seen as a unifying figure and a progressive leader for his time.

What are some of the positive attributes attributed to Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire?

Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire are credited with religious toleration, a merit-based system, and creating a stable empire, which are seen by some as progressive for the time.

How does the concept of 'Mongol universality' relate to the empire's conquests?

Mongol universality refers to the idea of conquering the world to bring stability, which can be seen as a justification for their conquests, though it's a perspective that might not align with the experiences of those conquered.

What is the argument against viewing the Mongol Empire as a 'liberal' empire?

The argument is that while the Mongols may have appeared tolerant and progressive, their actions, such as taking people's daughters as concubines, show that their policies were more about control and stability rather than true liberalism.

How does the podcaster describe the Mongols' approach to religion within their empire?

The podcaster describes the Mongols as being religiously tolerant, but this was more about maintaining stability and control over their diverse empire rather than a genuine concern for religious freedom.

What is the significance of the nomadic tradition in understanding the Mongols' military success?

The nomadic tradition is significant because it provided the Mongols with a unique relationship with horses and a mastery of archery, which gave them a military advantage that was difficult for settled societies to replicate.

How does the podcaster compare the Mongols to other nomadic confederacies in history?

The podcaster compares the Mongols to other nomadic confederacies like the Scythians, Sarmatians, Avars, and Huns, noting that what made the Mongols different was Genghis Khan's ability to unite them and maintain a stable empire.

What role did Genghis Khan play in the formation of the Mongol Empire according to the podcast?

Genghis Khan played a crucial role in unifying the various tribes of the Mongols, creating a powerful confederacy that was able to conquer a vast empire and maintain control for several generations.

How does the podcaster view the portrayal of Genghis Khan and the Mongols by later historians?

The podcaster suggests that later historians may have put a positive spin on the Mongols' actions, viewing them as progressive or necessary for societal renewal, which might not align with the Mongols' own motivations or the experiences of those they conquered.

Outlines

00:00

🌐 Genghis Khan: Historical Arsonist or Liberator?

The paragraph discusses the complex legacy of Genghis Khan, touching on the debate over whether he was a progressive figure or a destructive force. It introduces the concept of 'historical arsonist,' suggesting that some historians view figures like Khan as necessary catalysts for change, clearing away societal stagnation to allow for renewal. The speaker acknowledges the Mongol Empire's reputation for religious tolerance but also points out the potential for this to be a mechanism of control rather than a genuine moral stance. The paragraph also raises questions about the motivations behind the Mongol conquests, suggesting that the positive portrayal of Genghis Khan might be a retrospective justification rather than a reflection of his own intentions.

05:02

🏹 The Mongol Warriors: Masters of War

This paragraph delves into the military prowess of the Mongols, suggesting that their success was not based on a pre-existing ideology but emerged from their exceptional skill as warriors. The speaker compares the Mongols to other nomadic tribes throughout history, emphasizing their unique relationship with horses and their mastery of mounted warfare. The paragraph also discusses the Mongols' nomadic origins and how their military advantage was tied to their lifestyle rather than to a specific set of weapons or tactics. The speaker reflects on the eventual decline of the Mongols' military dominance with the advent of gunpowder and the rise of settled societies.

10:03

🐎 The Nomadic Legacy: Horsemanship and Military Strategy

The final paragraph focuses on the unique military strategy of the nomadic tribes, particularly the Mongols, who were renowned for their horsemanship and archery skills. The speaker describes how these tribes, from the Scythians to the Comanches, were able to maintain a significant military advantage due to their intimate connection with horses, which allowed them to shoot arrows while riding at full speed. This skill was so integral to their identity that they were likened to centaurs. The paragraph also touches on the strategic use of these tribes by settled societies, who would often hire them as mercenaries due to their unmatched abilities. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the role of leaders like Genghis Khan in uniting these tribes and the importance of preventing such confederations to maintain regional stability.

Keywords

💡Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan was the founder and first Great Khan of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death. In the script, he is discussed in terms of his impact on history and whether he should be viewed as a progressive or an evil destroyer. His ability to unite various tribes and create a vast empire is a central theme, illustrating the power dynamics and historical significance of his rule.

💡Historical arsonist

The term 'historical arsonist' is used in the script to describe figures in history who, through violent or disruptive actions, are seen as clearing the way for societal renewal. It's a philosophical concept that questions whether such actions, like Genghis Khan's conquests, can be justified if they lead to a perceived better future, akin to a forest fire that clears deadwood for new growth.

💡Religious toleration

Religious toleration refers to the practice of allowing the free exercise of different religions without discrimination or persecution. In the context of the script, it is mentioned as one of the positive attributes attributed to Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire, suggesting a progressive stance that contrasts with the violent aspects of their conquests.

💡Empire

An empire is a group of territories and nations under a single supreme authority, often an emperor or an empress. The script discusses the Mongol Empire established by Genghis Khan, highlighting the complexities of empire-building, including the trade-offs between the spread of culture, religion, and trade versus the violence and disruption caused by conquest.

💡Nomadic tradition

The nomadic tradition refers to a way of life where people move from place to place, often in search of pasture for their livestock. The script contrasts the Mongols' nomadic origins with their later roles as rulers of settled societies, emphasizing the unique military and cultural aspects of nomadic peoples that contributed to their success.

💡Eurasian Steppe

The Eurasian Steppe is a large, flat, and arid region in Eurasia that stretches from Eastern Europe to Siberia. In the script, it is mentioned as the historical home of various nomadic tribes, including the Mongols, who developed a unique relationship with horses and a distinct military advantage that played a crucial role in their conquests.

💡Horsemen and archery

Horsemen and archery were integral to the military strategy of the Mongols and other nomadic tribes of the Eurasian Steppe. The script describes how these warriors were adept at shooting arrows from horseback, a skill that gave them a significant advantage over more traditional infantry and cavalry forces.

💡Conqueror

A conqueror is a person who subdues or defeats other people or territories, often by military means. The script uses Genghis Khan as an example of a conqueror, discussing the moral and philosophical implications of conquest and the complex legacy left by such figures.

💡Stagnation

Stagnation refers to a state of little or no activity, growth, or change. In the context of the script, it is used to describe a situation where societies become overly bureaucratic or corrupt, potentially justifying the actions of a 'historical arsonist' who might disrupt the status quo to allow for renewal.

💡Mongol universality

Mongol universality is a concept mentioned in the script that suggests the idea of the Mongols bringing stability and uniformity to the world through conquest. It is critiqued as a potentially misleading positive spin on the violent process of empire-building.

💡Ideology

An ideology is a set of political or social principles that are considered fundamental to an individual or a group. The script speculates on the origins of the Mongols' success, suggesting that their initial focus on martial excellence and horsemanship may have been more significant than any overarching ideological motivations.

Highlights

The debate over the pronunciation of Genghis Khan's name and the uncertainty surrounding it.

Genghis Khan's impact on human civilization and the fascination with his historical legacy.

The question of whether Genghis Khan was an evil man or a progressive figure, considering the context of his time.

The concept of 'historical arsonist' and its application to figures like Genghis Khan who reshaped societies through conquest.

The idea that some historical figures may be seen as providing a service to humanity by clearing out stagnation and corruption.

The portrayal of Genghis Khan as a positive figure due to his actions that led to the establishment of a new world order.

The argument that Genghis Khan's actions, such as religious toleration, were more about maintaining control than liberal ideology.

The蒙古帝国's approach to religion and how it was used as a tool for stability rather than a genuine expression of tolerance.

The critique of the 'liberal empire' narrative and the question of whether the Mongols' actions were truly progressive.

The analogy of shooting an arrow and painting a bullseye around it to discuss the retrospective justification of historical actions.

The emergence of the Mongol Empire and the importance of Genghis Khan's leadership in uniting various tribes.

The comparison of the Mongols to other nomadic warrior tribes, such as the Comanches, and their military prowess.

The unique human-animal relationship of the Eurasian steppe nomads and its impact on their military advantage.

The historical context of the Mongols as part of a long line of nomadic confederacies in the Eurasian steppe.

The role of diplomacy in keeping nomadic tribes separated to prevent the formation of powerful confederacies.

The significance of Genghis Khan in unifying the Mongols and maintaining their empire for several generations.

Transcripts

is it genghis khan or genghis khan

it's not genghis khan it's either

genghis khan or chingas khan

so let's go with the genghis khan the

only thing i'll be able to say with any

certain

last certain thing i'll say about it uh

it's like i don't know

gif versus jif i don't know i don't know

how

i don't know how it ever got started the

wrong way yeah

so first of all your episodes on uh

genghis khan

for many people are the favorite it's

fascinating to think about

events that had so much like in their

ripples had so much impact on

so much of human civilization in your

view

was he an evil man

this goes to our discussion of evil

another way to put it is i've read

he's much loved in much part in many

parts of the world like mongolia

and i've also read arguments that say

that

he was quite a progressive for the time

so where do you put him is he a

progressive or is he an evil destroyer

of

humans as i often say i'm not a

historian which is why

what i try to bring to the hardcore

history podcasts

are these sub themes so each show has

and they're not i try to kind of soft

pedal them so they're not always like

really right in front of your face

um in that episode the soft pedaling sub

theme had to do with what we uh referred

to as a historical arsonist

and it's because some historians have

taken the position

that sometimes and and most of this is

earlier so historians don't do this very

much anymore but these were the

wonderful questions i grew up with

that blend it's almost the intersection

between history and philosophy

and the idea was that sometimes

the world has become so overwhelmed with

bureaucracy

or corruption or just stagnation

that somebody has to come in or some

group of people or some force has to

come in

and do the equivalent of a forest fire

to clear out all the dead wood

so that the forest itself can be

rejuvenated and

and society can then move forward and

there's a lot of these periods where the

historians

of the past will portray these figures

who come in and do horrific

things as creating an almost service

for for mankind right uh creating the

foundations

for a new world that will be better than

the old one and it's a recurring theme

and so this was the sub

theme uh of the of the cons podcast

because otherwise you don't need me to

tell you the story of the mongols but

i'm going to bring up the

historical arsonist element um and but

this gets to how the khan has been

portrayed right

if you want to say oh yes he cleared out

the dead wood and made for a for

well then it's a positive thing if you

say my family was in the forest fire

that he set

you're not going to see it that way um

much of what

genghis khan is credited with on the

upside right

so things like religious toleration and

you'll say well he was uh

religiously the mongols were religious

uh religiously tolerant and so this

makes them almost like a liberal

reformer kind of thing

but this needs to be seen within the

context of

of their empire which was uh very much

like the roman viewpoint which is the

romans didn't care at a lot of time what

your local people worshipped

they wanted stability and if that kept

stability and kept you paying taxes and

didn't require the legionaries to come

in and and

then they didn't care right and and the

cons were the same way like they don't

care what you're practicing as long as

it doesn't disrupt their empire and

cause them trouble

but what i always like to point out is

yes but the khan could still come

in with his representatives to your town

decide your daughter was a beautiful

woman that they wanted in the khan's

concubine

and they would take them so how liberal

an empire is this right so

so many of the things that they get

credit for as though they're some kind

of nice guys

may in another way of looking at it just

be a simple mechanism of control

right a way to keep the empire stable

they're not doing it out of the goodness

of their heart they have decided that

this is the best

and i love because the mongols were

what we would call a pagan people now i

love the fact that they

and i think we call it i forgot the term

we used it had to do with like like they

were hedging their bets religiously

right

they didn't know which god was the right

one so as long as you're all praying for

the health of the khan we're maximizing

the chances that whoever the gods are

they get the message right

um so i think it's been portrayed as

something

like a liberal empire and it the idea of

mongol universality universality is is

more about

conquering the world and it's like

saying you know we're going to bring

stability to the world by conquering it

well what if that's hitler

right he could make the same case or

hitler wasn't really the world conqueror

like that because he wouldn't have been

he wouldn't have been trying to make it

equal for all peoples but my point being

that it kind of takes the positive moral

slant out of it if their motivation

wasn't

a positive moral slant to the motivation

and

and the mongols didn't see it that way

and i think the way that it's portrayed

is like

and i always like to use this this

analogy but it's like um

shooting an arrow and painting a

bullseye around it afterwards

right how how do we how do we justify

and make them look good in a way that

they themselves

probably and unless we don't have the

mongol point of view

per se i mean there's something called

the secret history of the mongols and

there's

things written down by mongolian

overlords through people like persian

and chinese scribes later we don't have

their point of view

but it sure doesn't look like this was

an attempt to create some wonderful

place where everybody was living a

better life than they were before

i i think that's that's later people uh

putting a nice rosy spin on it so but

there's an aspect to it

maybe you can correct me because i'm

projecting sort of my idea of what it

would take to

to uh to conquer so much land

is uh the ideology

is emergent so if i were to guess

the mongols started out as

exceptionally as warriors who valued

excellence in skill of killing and not

even killing but like the

the actual practice of war and it can

start out small

you can grow and grow and grow and then

in order to maintain the stability

of the things over which of the

conquered lands

you developed a set of ideas with which

you can like you said

establish control but it was emergent

and it seems like the core

first principle idea of the mongols

is just to be excellent warriors that

felt

that felt to me like the starting point

it wasn't some ideology

like with hitler and stalin with hitler

the there was an ideology that didn't

have anything to do with

with war underneath it it was more about

conquering it feels like

the mongols started out more um

organically i would say

it's emerg like this phenomenon started

emergently and they were just

like similar to the native americans

with like the comanches like the

different warrior tribes that joe rogan

is currently obsessed with

at the that what led me to look into it

more they they seem to just

start out just valuing the skill of

fighting whatever the tools of war they

had which were pretty primitive

but just to be the best warriors they

could possibly be make a science out of

it

is that is that crazy to think that

there was no ideology behind it in the

beginning

i'm gonna back up a second i'm reminded

of the line set about the romans that

they create a wasteland

and call it peace that is wow that but

but but there's a lot of conquerors like

that right um where

where uh you you will sit there and

listen historians forever have

it's it's the trait it's the famous

trade-offs of empire

and they'll say well look at the trade

that they facilitated and look at you

know the religion all those kinds of

things but they come

at the cost of all those peoples that

they conquered forcibly and and

and by force integrated into their

empire

the one thing we need to remember about

the mongols that makes them different

than say the romans

and this is complex stuff and way above

my pay grade but i'm fascinated with it

and it's more like the comanches that

you just brought up is that the mongols

are not a settled

society okay they are they are they come

from a nomadic tradition now several

generations later

when you have a kubila khan as as the

as the emperor of china it's it's

beginning to be a different thing right

and the mongols when their empire broke

up the ones that were

uh in settle the so-called settled

societies right iran places like that

they will become more like over time the

rulers of those places were

traditionally

and the mongols and say like the the

cognate of the golden horde which is

still in

in their traditional nomadic territories

will remain traditionally more mongol

but when you start talking about who the

mongols were

i try to to make a distinction they're

not

some really super special people

they're just the latest confederacy

in an area that saw nomadic

confederacies going back to the

beginning of recorded history

the scythians the sarmatians the avars

the huns the magyars i mean these are

all the nomadic you know the nomads of

the eurasian steppe were

huge huge players in the history of the

world until gunpowder

nullified their their traditional weapon

system which i've been fascinated with

because

their traditional weapon system is not

one you could copy

because you were talking about being the

greatest warriors you could be

every warrior society i've ever seen

values that

what this what the nomads had of the

eurasian step was this

relationship between human beings and

animals

that changed the equation it was how

they rode

horses and societies like the byzantines

which would form one flank of the step

and then all the way on the other side

you had china and below that you had

persia these societies would all attempt

to create mounted horsemen who used

archery

and they did a good job but they were

never the equals

of the nomads because those people were

literally raised in the saddle

they compared them to centaurs um the

comanches great example considered to be

the best

horse riding warriors in north america

uh the comanches i always loved watching

uh there's paintings george catlin

the famous uh um uh painter who painted

the comanches

uh illustrated it but the mongols and

the scythians

and scithians and the avars and all

these people did it too where they would

shoot from underneath the horse's neck

hiding behind the horse the whole way

you look at a picture of somebody doing

that and it's insane

this is what the byzantines couldn't do

and the chinese couldn't do

it was a different level of of

harnessing a human animal relationship

that gave them a military advantage

that could not be copied right it could

be emulated but they were never as good

right that's why they always hired these

people

they hired mercenaries from these areas

because they were incomparable

right it's the combination of people who

were shooting bows and arrows

from the time they were toddlers who

were riding from the time they were

who rode all the time i mean they were

the huns were bow-legged the romans said

because they were never

they ate slept everything in the saddle

that creates something that is difficult

to copy

and it gave them a military advantage uh

you know

i enjoy reading actually about when that

military advantage

ended so 17th and 18th century when the

chinese on one flank and the russians on

the other are beginning to use

firearms and stuff to break this

military

power of these of these various cons

the mongols were simply the most

dominating and most successful

of the confederacies but if you break it

down they really

formed the nucleus at the top of the

pyramid of the apex of the food chain

and a lot of the people that were known

as mongols were really

lots of other tribes non-mongolian

tribes that when the mongols conquer you

after they killed a lot of you they

incorporated you into their confederacy

um and often made you go first you know

you're gonna fight somebody we're gonna

make these people go out in front and

suck up all the arrows

before we go and finish the job so to me

and and i guess a fan of the mongols

would say that the difference

and what made the mongols different

wasn't the weapon system or the fighting

or the warriors or the armor or anything

it was genghis khan and if you go look

at the other

really dangerous from the outside

world's perspective dangerous

step nomadic confederacies from past

history was always when

some great leader emerged that could

unite the tribes and you see the same

thing in native american history two

degree two um

you had people like attila right

or uh there was one called two men you

go back in history and these people

make the history books because they

caused an enormous amount of trouble for

their settled neighbors

that normally i mean chinese byzantine

and persian

approaches to the step people were

always the same they would pick out

tribes to be friendly with they would

give them money gifts hire them

and they would use them against the

other tribes and generally

byzantine especially in chinese

diplomatic history was all about keeping

these tribes separated

don't let them form confederations of

large numbers of them

because then they're unstoppable attila

was a perfect example

the huns were another large the turks

another large confederacy of these

people and they were devastating when

they could unite so the diplomatic

policy was don't let them

that's what made the mongols different

is genghis khan united them and then

unlike most of the tribal confederacies

he was able they were able to hold it

together for a few generations

you