Another "dark age"

It is difficult to argue that the Mongols did not have a major effect on population centres when the result of their Imperial ambition created a minor ice age whose actual influence was felt across the world.

This is the 1st time I hear that the Mongols are credited with a world-wide ice age. So-called Little Ice Age supposedly happened either between XVI and XIX centuries or between 1300 and 1850 and, according to Wiki, the reasons are not quite clear: "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population." It is rather unclear how the last reason on the list could apply to Europe where the Mongols did not cause any significant loss of the population and how their alleged impact could last till the XIX century all the way to England.


We can consider written histories suspect in their biases, but pure scientific evidence points to a massive reduction in human population in the time of Mongol expansion.

In Asia, especially China. But not in Europe.



It is also hard to imagine that building an empire results in few casualties.

Please, define "few" and provide the numbers for the British, French and Russian empires.


An empire of such scale as the Mongols led to the destruction of many nations and peoples such as Khwarezmia

There was no nation or a comprehensive group of people called "Khwarezmia". Khwaresmid Empire was a hodge podge of the tribes and areas subdued by the conquerors of the Turic origin with the conquests continued all the way to the Mongolian invasion and even during it (Jelal ad Din's conquest of Georgia with a following massacre of Tbilisi's population).

Most of the ethnic groups populating the area survived and exist even now.

and the Tanguts sudden sharp end.

Not quite "sudden" but the "end" did not mean a complete annihilation of the nation. Wuwei surrendered and avoided destruction. Xia lost independence but nation survived " many Tangut families joined the Mongol Empire. Some of them led Mongol armies, e.g. Cha'an, into the conquest of China. After the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368) was established, the Tangut troops were incorporated into the Mongol army in their subsequent military conquests in central and southern China. ... The Tangut people living in Central China preserved their language until at least the 16th century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangut_people#History

Deserts and forests swallowed regions of previouly intense agricultural usage leading to an environmental event that outstripped the effect of the Black Death on the environment.

AFAIK, something of the kind happened in a single region of the CA (and they still keep blaming the Mongols) but not all over the Mongolian Empire. Most of the Northern China was back to the business as usual within years (and big part of it suffered minimal damage because it relatively easily switched to the Mongolian side) and AFAIK, conquest of the Southern China was not accompanied by the unusual massacres. In Rus (another area of the "intense agricultural usage") everything was back to normal within few years after conquest. Most of the rest were steppe and desert territories.

The dissolution of such a huge empire that allowed communication across great distances would be seen as a fall back into isolation.

So not only creation but dissolution was bad as well. :)

"Isolation" did nor happen even after the "dissolution" (one more tricky notion: the process was quite long and complicated). Communications became more difficult but they did not disappear all the way to Timur who did a "brilliant" job in the terms of screwing things up by looting territory of the Golden Horde.

The instabilty caused by civil wars, succession wars and wars of independence would be catastrophic. The collapse of the empire would be far more damaging than the expansion and all empires end.

Actually, it was considered as a rather good thing by the Chinese (who overthrew the Mongolian dynasty), by the Russians (who eventually got rid of the vassal dependency) , by the Iranians who got rid of Ilkhanate, etc. BTW, was this fall also responsible for some global disasters (like eruption of Krakatoa in 1888)? x'D

I am not saying there were no benefits to the Mongolian Empire, but it would be hard to argue in its favour if they are invading you.

Sorry, but it seems that you are more than a little bit confused. AFAIK, nobody said that the Mongolian invasion was a wonderful thing to look forward to (*). It was bloody and cruel but we are talking about the XII - XIII centuries. No Hague or Geneva conventions, no Red Cross, etc. The point is that a "classic" depiction of the Mongols as exclusively negative destructive force is extremely primitive and does not stand up to any serious criticism. The contemporary (including post-conquest) sources can't be taken literally. For example, how could be an eyewitness of a complete annihilation of a city's population and how come that within few years the city is, again, a well-populated center with a lot of merchants, artisans, etc. How come that with the city being burned to the ground, population being killed to a last person, princely family and the clergy being massacred to the last person we have not only all these terrible things written in a chronicle by an eyewitness clergyman but we also know for sure that almost immediately after this conquest a hereditary prince is visiting Batu Sarai and then travels all the way to Karakorum to get Khan's patent on that depopulated princedom and that somehow his capital is still in place and he is capable of presenting significant gifts to his new overlords. At least with the old Russian chronicles one thing is easy to explain: meaning of the word "kill" was significantly different from the modern and did not mean "murder", just something bad happening.

The point is that their conquests were quite complicated events and that on quite early stage a value of the educated people (Uyghurs, Chinese, Muslims) was well understood ("We conquered empire sitting in a saddle but we can't rule it from the saddle") and destruction of the knowledge was rather occasional (and more or less usual thing within the general picture of that period) than intentional.


While their enlightened attitude to religious freedom was remarkable for the time they lived in they were still brutal conquerers with some ingeneous rulers. The story of the siege of Kuju always sticks in my head as a sign of both the Mongols honour in saluting the garrison commander and their terrifying resourcefulness in boiling their prisoners alive to use their human fat as explosives.

Nobody said that the Mongols were the earlier version of Mother Theresa but the acceptable norms of behavior had been quite different from the modern ones (**) and, not being a specialist in chemistry, I'm not sure how exactly the human fat could be converted into an explosive. Even less sure why the procedure required boiling alive: would the fat extracted from the corps be less explosive? Anyway boiling the people alive was a rather common method of execution used in Europe to deal with the poisoners and counterfeiters; IIRC, there were even nuances: a noble would be boiled in oil and commoner in water. The Mongols had been doing this since at least the time of Jamuha (who did this to the captured Temuchin's followers) but I did not see any mention of the following fat utilization. Strongly suspect that it would be easier to kill, cut the fat and then boil it but I may be completely wrong about that. :tiredface:
In the case you are referencing to Wiki has the following "The most grisly weapon used during the siege were fire-bombs which contained boiled down, liquefied human fat". Nothing about it being extracted from the live people and nothing about explosives; BTW, any idea how well the human fat burns?). I have no idea where this information is coming for.


______________________
(*) Except at least for an old Chinese novel in which the lovers' problems are being resolved by the Mongolian invasion of their province: all state officials immediately had been promoted to the next rank and the lovers finally could get married and live happily ever after. :love:

(**) The English execution for those guilty of a high treason was quite "inventive". Even in the XVII century Europe breaking on the wheel was OK while in the PLC impaling was something of "the 1st serious warning" (just kidding) with the inventive additions like 1st half-burn on a slow fire and then impale. The Ottomans had been probably even more inventive in that area and Chinese also had quite a reputation (not sure which of the descriptions are inventions of the modern authors and which did exist). Killing prisoners in mass was quite common. For example, Richard the Lion Heart ordered a mass execution of the prisoners and much later Charles the Bold order to hung the captured Swiss. Speaking of which, the written rule of the Swiss was not to stop to take prisoners: they all had to be killed on the spot (quite practical reason: taking prisoners would slow down advance of the column). Or a generally accepted international military code which existed by the time of the 30YW required to execute the defenders of a hopeless position because they are causing unnecessary losses.
 
Milton Keynes was proposed but rejected on humanitarian grounds.


:winkytongue:

You are explaining one unclear thing with another. The only thing I found about MK on Wiki was that it was designed as a "new city" with a grid planning. I can make certain guesses but it would be better ("on humanitarian grounds") if you can provide some specifics for both cases. :pensive:
 
You are explaining one unclear thing with another. The only thing I found about MK on Wiki was that it was designed as a "new city" with a grid planning. I can make certain guesses but it would be better ("on humanitarian grounds") if you can provide some specifics for both cases. :pensive:

The centre is quite soulless. Also there is "death" by roundabouts on the grid system, including some with traffic lights. Now, there are some very pleasant areas in the towns and villages which predate 1968, but some of the original parts built in the early 70s are in dire need of rebuilding. Coventry has its faults but it is a proper city.
(Unlike MK which proudly proclaims itself as the New City of Milton Keynes despite it officially being a town. For some reason it keeps being ignored whenever a new batch of cities is proclaimed!)

Referring back to the OP, unless I'm mistaken (if I am then I'm sure @LSCatilina will correct my ignorance) then the only part of Europe that can be said to have had a true Dark Age after the fall of Rome is Britain between Gildas and Bede (who heavily referenced Gildas for lack of anything else except oral tradition). Even then there is some evidence in inscriptions and memorials that literacy didn't quite die out. However there are no substantial contemporary records or literature.
 
Last edited:
The centre is quite soulless. Also there is "death" by roundabouts on the grid system, including some with traffic lights.

We have plenty of those here in MA ("Massachusetts" not "Middle Ages") with and without the lights. Kind of fun, when you get used to it. For those out of the area: a normal driver of MA never read the rules (not needed to get the license), considers the red light as a vague recommendation and has no idea about the meaning of speed limit signs (to be fair, what is the meaning of putting, within 2 hundred meters, signs 25mph, 40 mph, 25mph?).

Now, there are some very pleasant areas in the towns and villages which predate 1968, but some of the original parts built in the early 70s are in dire need of rebuilding.

Hmmmmm. There are so many things being rebuilt in and around Boston that one simply can't know all of them. Probably the only parts that are more or less stable are those of the XVIII - early XIX century. Of course, driving in MA is an adventure but I would not expel the unwanted individuals to it. ;)

Coventry has its faults but it is a proper city.
(Unlike MK which proudly proclaims itself as the New City of Milton Keynes despite it officially being a town. For some reason it keeps being ignored whenever a new batch of cities is proclaimed!)

Thanks for the information but it still leaves me with the same question: what's so bad about these places? BTW, are all of them "dead" (as in "everything is closed") by mid-Saturday?

Referring back to the OP, unless I'm mistaken (if I am then I'm sure @LSCatilina will correct my ignorance) then the only part of Europe that can be said to have had a true Dark Age after the fall of Rome is Britain between Gildas and Bede (who heavily referenced Gildas for lack of anything else except oral tradition). Even then there is some evidence in inscriptions and memorials that literacy didn't quite die out. However there are no substantial contemporary records or literature.

Well, as far as Petrarch was involved, everything, including Italy, was in the Dark Ages until Cicero's letters had been found. As in Wiki: "Petrarch wrote that history had two periods: the classic period of Greeks and Romans, followed by a time of darkness in which he saw himself living" so he spent much of his time rediscovering and republishing classic Latin and Greek texts and insisting that everybody should speak a perfect Latin. It seems that he even did not read Divina Commedia because its form (and language) was not "classic". Later, Baronius further developed the same "theory" based on the known amounts of the Latin writings (an idea that people can write on their own language was not worthy of a consideration so probably China and India were permanently in the Dark Ages :)). Why should anybody pay too much attention to the opinion of these intellectual snobs?

Many years ago in (now defunct) SHM the official definition of the Dark Ages was "Time of insufficient street lightening". This was at least a valid and comprehensive definition based upon unquestionably useful criteria. :winkytongue:
 
Dark Ages is an outdated eurocentric concept. In Persia, Arabia, India, China, Korea and Japan, there was no "Dark age".

The collapse of Roman civilisation in the eastern Mediterranean regions like Egypt, Syria and Palestine, Anatolia and Greece came in the 7th century. The Persian war from 602 to 628 left much of the region in ruins. Classical cities were repeatedly sacked, burned and destroyed. Many places were abandoned.

Roman society might have eventually recovered, but the Arab conquests starting in 632 had already by 640 or so permanently ended the Roman period in Egypt, Palestine and Syria. As for Anatolia, centuries of constant war and annual raids and invasions ensured that classical civilisation ended permanently.

The Avars and Slavs overran the Balkans at the same time, ending classical civilisation there.

Ironically, the Roman regions that survived best were those that surrendered relatively quickly with minimal fighting. For example, the negotiated surrender of Jerusalem to the Arabs, which was done by the Orthodox Patriarch on condition that the Muslim Caliph should come in person. It worked, in the sense that his presence and the diplomatic method ensured an orderly transfer of power took place and there was no sack of the city.

The provinces taken quickly by the Arabs soon recovered and went on to flourish as part of a new civilisation. But Anatolia, which found itself fought over by two empires over the course of several dynasties, was decimated repeatedly.

The dark age is a catchy sounding term which applies only to Europe (plus Anatolia), and even then it began at different places in different times. For example in Britain and Greece, it arrived 200 years apart, in 400 and 600 respectively. That's not to mention it's debated how early the transformation of antiquity started, with some arguing it began in the west before Rome fell, and others arguing that much continued as before even centuries afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Dark Ages is an outdated eurocentric concept. In Persia, Arabia, India, China, Korea and Japan, there was no "Dark age".


The dark age is a catchy sounding term which applies only to Europe (plus Anatolia), and even then it began at different places in different times.

It is not even "eurocentric" but rather "roman-centric". :oops:
By "classic" (o_O) definition the term meant a falling volume of the writings in Latin which means that it can be meaningfully applied only to the parts of Europe that were within the Roman Empire. It would be rather strange to require from the places that never were within it to start using Latin as the main communication language. In the Catholic part of the non-Roman region this partially happened (mostly religious and scientific writings but not the literature) but Latin was introduced as a part of the Catholic religion well after the fall of the Western Empire. In a big part of Europe it did not happen at all.
[/QUOTE]
 
This is the 1st time I hear that the Mongols are credited with a world-wide ice age. So-called Little Ice Age supposedly happened either between XVI and XIX centuries or between 1300 and 1850 and, according to Wiki, the reasons are not quite clear: "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population." It is rather unclear how the last reason on the list could apply to Europe where the Mongols did not cause any significant loss of the population and how their alleged impact could last till the XIX century all the way to England.


AFAIK, something of the kind happened in a single region of the CA (and they still keep blaming the Mongols) but not all over the Mongolian Empire. Most of the Northern China was back to the business as usual within years (and big part of it suffered minimal damage because it relatively easily switched to the Mongolian side) and AFAIK, conquest of the Southern China was not accompanied by the unusual massacres. In Rus (another area of the "intense agricultural usage") everything was back to normal within few years after conquest. Most of the rest were steppe and desert territory

You have quoted nothing but Wikipedia and assumed the quantity of your verbiage would make up for its quality. Wikipedia is still easily manipulated and best avoided if looking for good sources on specific material. Theres a reason you still cant use it as a source in accepted Academic material. You could easily state that any of those environmental factors could also be the cause of current climate change, yet you bring no actual sources to back your claims. War has an adverse affect on the regions that it hampers. Asking how the loss of a huge population on one side the world could adversely affect the population on another part shows a woeful lack of environmental scientific knowledge. This is happening as we speak or do you think that vast output of CO2 in the USA and the Northern Hemisphere has no effect on the Maldives islands?

Studies on historical changes in the hydrology of Hungary would also provide relevant information about the geography and ecology of Hungary in the 13th century. Moreover, the extent to which war, devastation and famine impacted the local population may also surface through epidemiological studies, coupled with isotopic analysis to investigate dietary changes. Finally, the extraction of aDNA would inform us of the extent to which Mongol and Cuman invasions altered the genetic makeup of Hungary and its surrounding regions. While caution must be exercised when extrapolating complex mechanisms of human-environment interaction over space and time, the MW constitutes an excellent, though perhaps still preliminary, case-study to explore the role that relatively minor environmental factors may have played on major socio-cultural, political and economic phenomena.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25606

CO2 oscillations of ∼ 10 ppm in the last 1000 years are too large to be explained by external (solar-volcanic) forcing, but they can be explained by outbreaks of bubonic plague that caused historically documented farm abandonment in western Eurasia. Forest regrowth on abandoned farms sequestered enough carbon to account for the observed CO2 decreases. Plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300–1900 AD).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004577.17928.fa

Cities can grow in population quite quickly. Populations shifted or migrate to fill vacuums. Who could have seen the ruins of Carthage becoming the pre eminent city in North Africa after its annhilation? Or Athens recovering so many times from devastating invasions, such as under Sulla? Should we congratulate the Mongols for only wiping out most of the Tanguts and not all of them or just most of the self declared Khwarezmians and not all of their vassals too?

Human fat also burns with fierce intensity and can be refined (though few would) into more powerful flammable materials. The Nazis designed the Death Camp crematoria ovens to utilise human fat to incinerate the corpses of their victims with ghoulish 'efficiency'. Women held more body fat than men so their bodies were put on the bottom as fuel to burn the bodies placed above. It abhors to think anyone would devise such a contraption.

Mongols would famously execute their enemies by boiling them alive and I recall a description of the battle (page 89 of
Korea: The Mongol Invasions by William E. Henthorn) that described the event in greater detail, a similar tactic to Agathocles strapping women and children, alive, to his siege engines in the siege of Utica that saps morale and attepts to breach the city. Mongol execution methods were no better or worse than Roman crucifixion or Sassanid Scaphism.

We can suppose safely removed from historical events relying on the biased words of those written for or against various rulers and nations and we can go at this for as long as we have time.

When I was being taught Palaeoecology we learned how humanity can affect their environment, from the tribes of Australia burning the bushland until plants stopped growing to the Mongols invasions devastating populations and reducing agricultural land usage by destroying/ abandoning the canal system of Mesopotamia. As science is taught methods and hypothesis are tested and those hypotheses may change, but it is what I was taught at the time and sadly I no longer have access to those materials.

I see no need for your snide commentary, if you want to refute my argument then do so without the attitude and I will respond as such. The original poster asked for an event that could essentially repeat the so called Dark Age. To the actual extent of the original or as bad as it was thought to be? Its true that it was mainly localised, but I was merely offering an attempt at an answer. Whose to say a particularly brutal successor reigns. Building an empire is ugly work. An empire falling apart can be just as ugly.
 
Last edited:
Referring back to the OP, unless I'm mistaken (if I am then I'm sure @LSCatilina will correct my ignorance) then the only part of Europe that can be said to have had a true Dark Age after the fall of Rome is Britain between Gildas and Bede (who heavily referenced Gildas for lack of anything else except oral tradition). Even then there is some evidence in inscriptions and memorials that literacy didn't quite die out. However there are no substantial contemporary records or literature.
No, no, you're right : fortunately, historical analysis can be made with various sources and not just textual evidence thanks to the development of archeology and para-historic disciplines. We know more about "Dark Ages" Britain than we ever did thanks to this.
Note that lack of literrary evidence for Late Antiquity isn't the sole particularity of Late Ancient Britain : we know that Merovingians used papyrii for their administration, and that Late Ancient Africa was a renowed cultural center but the first have long disappeared (and while time and climate did their job, Carolingian decision to simply put these under the rug did help), and the second either wasn't copied in Constantinople out of sheer neglect (there is very limited literary sources on Africa in Byzantine's corpus after the late VIth) or trough Arab conquests. Which is a pity, because in both cases we're talking of a relatively widespread Late Roman culture that was either sacrificed on the altar of aristocratic-clerical learning by Carolingians, either replaced by an Arab-based culture; but were quite dynamic in their times.

The difference, as you said, was that you had a hiatus that is perceptible in sources we have and that there is probably a whole oral history that wasn't written down before the VIIth, which does point to a serious societal change.
 
You have quoted nothing but Wikipedia and assumed the quantity of your verbiage would make up for its quality. Wikipedia is still easily manipulated and best avoided if looking for good sources on specific material.


I expected that referencing books in Russian on the subject of Mongolian conquests would not be very helpful to you but if you insist I'm ready to oblige. You can find some related material, for example, in the books of Lev Gumilev (http://www.koob.ru/gumilev/) who, among other things, was correlating "activity" of the steppe people with the periodic climate changes (and not other way around) or in "История военного искусства" by Razin, Or even in "History of Russia from the Earliest Times" by Sergei Soloviev (being written in XIX it is somewhat "traditional" in its attitudes but contains a lot of material).

Your reference https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25606 talks about potential climate impact on Mongolian invasion of Hungary and not about Mongolian impact upon the global climate. "Finally, we argue how environmental factors may have entered the decision-making process of the Mongol leadership (at a specific location and within a short period)."

Of course, one of the main climate-related arguments (wet spring of 1242) is not 100% convincing because it assumes that the Mongols were planning to continue their advance in a spring time. Why would they do anything of the kind if the pattern of their previous campaigns clearly indicates that they were choosing the seasons favorable for their operations, winter or summer?

Denial of Ogedei's death as one of the factors for the Mongolian retreat is not 100% plausible. Yes, Batu did not go to Kuriltai (thus breaking with a requirement but saving his life) but most of the Genghisid princes left with their contingents and so did Subotai, which made further campaign impossible. See, for example http://flibusta.is/b/370085 ("Субэдэй. Всадник, покорявший вселенную").


To quote further from your source: "There are no specific indications about weather in summer and fall 1241. The Hungarian provinces were partitioned among Mongol headmen, and gifts and provisions were brought to them. Moreover, the Mongols did not burn the crops, ordered servants to provide shelter and fodder for their horses, and left people alive to take care of the harvest. These preparations are somehow indicative of an early onset of the fall/winter in 1241. Anomalous cold conditions were accompanied by heavy snowfalls, and the Danube froze solid. Such circumstances allowed the Mongols to cross into Transdanubia and move towards current Austria and Germany. Documentation of the severity of the winter in historical sources provides the most significant direct information about climate at the time of the invasion."

What we see? 1st, that the area was not devastated and depopulated and 2nd, that the Mongols had been using the frozen river(s) during the winter campaign just as they did earlier in Russia. And, to further analogy, the winter campaign in Russia ended in a spring with the Mongols going back to the steppes of Volga region.

Cities can grow in population quite quickly. Populations shifted or migrate to fill vacuums.

I'm afraid that you are missing the point. The "sources" are routinely claiming a complete devastation of the areas conquered by the Mongols with the population being either killed or sent to Mongolia. To fill the vacuum you need people and if, as was described, all population of the area is annihilated there is nobody left to fill it. Not to mention that city can't be simply repopulated by the surviving peasants: they are neither artisans nor merchants. And it is rather difficult to reconcile the fact that the chronicle is presumably written by an eyewitness with the author's claim that everybody was killed.

The "sources" (Russian and those of the CA) are routinely describing a complete annihilation of the city population (except for those sent to Mongolia) and the same goes for a countryside. Descriptions related to China are quite graphic involving the great spaces soaked with the human fat and covered by the bones (all that, IIRC, quite a few years after fighting in the area took place). But we do know that quite a few provinces switched to the Mongolian side without fighting (their governors retained their positions), that Chinese contingents constituted a big portion of Mukhali (Muqali) armies conquering the Northern China and that under Khubilai proportion of these contingents increased. More or less the same goes for the Central Asia: how come that an alleged complete destruction was going hand to hand with the extensive cooperation of the local merchants? Mahmud Yalavach was a Sogdian merchant and Rashid ad Din - Iranian and they were just 2 best known figures. The most famous Russian prince of that period, Alexander Yaroslavovich, was named brother of Batu's son, etc.

Then, when you start looking closer, you are finding out that quite a few reports had been written based upon a hearsay and sometimes decades after the events. The confusing part is that some of the best known had been written by the order of the Mongolian rulers: bragging about the mass killings and destruction was a traditional way to demonstrate the greatness of the deed.

Mongols would famously execute their enemies by boiling them alive

As I said, they were doing this from time to time and it seems that Jamuha got the "credit" for pioneering it (not sure if he was really the 1st but he got a lot of a bad PR). There are later mentions of the same being done by Genghis order but this was not their usual method of execution and I'm not sure what's was so "famous" about it in the world where this was a rather routine thing. As I said, it was a rather routine punishment for a number of crimes in medieval Europe (not sure if Clavel's description of the same procedure in the XVI century Japan is based upon the facts).

However, in the case you are referencing to the goal is not an execution but extraction of the fat to be used for the practical purposes (fire bombs). So my question was quite obvious: did they have to boil people alive or would it be easier to extract fat from the corpses and then boil it?

The original poster asked for an event that could essentially repeat the so called Dark Age. To the actual extent of the original or as bad as it was thought to be?

The "Dark Age" is a strictly eurocentric notion applicable only to the part of Europe included into the Roman Empire and based upon a diminished volume of writings in Latin and Greek comparing to the Antiquity. Quite obviously, the notion is not applicable to the world outside of this region so the Mongols are neither here nor there.
 
Last edited:
I expected that referencing books in Russian on the subject of Mongolian conquests would not be very helpful to you but if you insist I'm ready to oblige. You can find some related material, for example, in the books of Lev Gumilev (http://www.koob.ru/gumilev/) or in "История военного искусства" by Razin, Or even in "History of Russia from the Earliest Times" by Sergei Soloviev (being written in XIX it is somewhat "traditional" in its attitudes but contains a lot of material).



I'm afraid that you are missing the point. The "sources" are routinely claiming a complete devastation of the areas conquered by the Mongols with the population being either killed or sent to Mongolia. To fill the vacuum you need people and if, as was described, all population of the area is annihilated there is nobody left to fill it. Not to mention that city can't be simply repopulated by the surviving peasants: they are neither artisans nor merchants. And it is rather difficult to reconcile the fact that the chronicle is presumably written by an eyewitness with the author's claim that everybody was killed.

The "sources" (Russian and those of the CA) are routinely describing a complete annihilation of the city population (except for those sent to Mongolia) and the same goes for a countryside. Descriptions related to China are quite graphic involving the great spaces soaked with the human fat and covered by the bones (all that, IIRC, quite a few years after fighting in the area took place). But we do know that quite a few provinces switched to the Mongolian side without fighting (their governors retained their positions), that Chinese contingents constituted a big portion of Mukhali (Muqali) armies conquering the Northern China and that under Khubilai proportion of these contingents increased. More or less the same goes for the Central Asia: how come that an alleged complete destruction was going hand to hand with the extensive cooperation of the local merchants? Mahmud Yalavach was a Sogdian merchant and Rashid ad Din - Iranian and they were just 2 best known figures. The most famous Russian prince of that period, Alexander Yaroslavovich, was named brother of Batu's son, etc.

Then, when you start looking closer, you are finding out that quite a few reports had been written based upon a hearsay and sometimes decades after the events. The confusing part is that some of the best known had been written by the order of the Mongolian rulers: bragging about the mass killings and destruction was a traditional way to demonstrate the greatness of the deed.



As I said, they were doing this from time to time and it seems that Jamuha got the "credit" for pioneering it (not sure if he was really the 1st but he got a lot of a bad PR). There are later mentions of the same being done by Genghis order but this was not their usual method of execution and I'm not sure what's was so "famous" about it in the world where this was a rather routine thing. As I said, it was a rather routine punishment for a number of crimes in medieval Europe (not sure if Clavel's description of the same procedure in the XVI century Japan is based upon the facts).

However, in the case you are referencing to the goal is not an execution but extraction of the fat to be used for the practical purposes (fire bombs). So my question was quite obvious: did they have to boil people alive or would it be easier to extract fat from the corpses and then boil it?



The "Dark Age" is a strictly eurocentric notion applicable only to the part of Europe included into the Roman Empire and based upon a diminished volume of writings in Latin and Greek comparing to the Antiquity. Quite obviously, the notion is not applicable to the world outside of this region so the Mongols are neither here nor there.

The post-Han pre-Tang period was pretty dark for China.
 
I agree with your assessment that historical record is usually garnished with lurid over the top description that is hardly helpful to historians, which is why backing claims of devastation need to be backed up with science to ascertain how truly terrible invasions were. Decline in arable land use by neglect of old irrigation systems is one such result.

The Mongol Empire made examples of populations that resisted, to sway those who may also resist, like many empires before them. Speed was their ally and sieges were long drawn out affairs that wasted time. The Romans and Neo-Assyrians were equally brutal (though the Neo-Assyrians far more so as they were wedded to their terrible ideology that postulated any rebellion against the King of Kings threatened to end the world).

The description of Mongols themselves citing bloody victories ties more in to an oratorical story telling culture of great heroes padding out their tales with dramatic visuals that was probably taken as truth by later writers as opposed to the Assyrians who were more intent on imposing a reign of terror over their subjects with actual images of horror depicting the actions of the king and his soldiers. Neo-Assyrian art is a stark contrast to later Achaemenid works showing the diversity of the Empire and how they all work as one. I do recall the story of the rivers of human fat pouring out of the gates of Chinese cities, but thought it probably artistic licence.

I am surprised you are asking why the Mongols would boil people alive within sight of the walls before extracting their fat for resources. The Mongols were very successful in Psychological warfare. If you can break the population of the city through fear then they may throw themselves at your mercy and end resistance. Their actions in killing people in gruesome ways within sight of the defenders is a tactic that has been repeated by many besiegers over the centuries. William the Conquerer cut off the hands of his prisoners besieging a town in France in full view of the population after they insulted his mother (she was a tanners daughter and the townspeople laid long strips of animal hide on the walls and told William they had some work for him to do). Sulla butchered his prisoners and most of the Athenian population when its Archon made fun of Sulls terrible acne. I can assume Sartai was probably jeered from the walls by the population of Kuju and decided to vent his frustration.

As for the Dark Age re-enactment, it is true that the Dark Ages were purely Eurocentric and a rather melodramatic title for a period of change in history. The original poster was looking for an event akin to the thematic Dark Ages of collapse of the old empires and loss of knowledge (primarily due to concentration of large amounts of it in libraries which have a tendency to burn down with or without invaders). More like the Bronze Age collapse I assumed. Essentially the worst possible outcome of the worst possible outcome. Due to the Dark Ages being horrendously Eurocentric I just threw out an idea that was essentially the worst possible outcome of total Mongol dominance of Eurasia, to cover as much ground as possible for his speculation that was a series of bad unseen decisions that had quick results, but long term ramifications.
 
Last edited:
There were plenty of "dark" periods all over the globe but the term "Dark Ages" has a very specific meaning just as some other related terminology like "Middle Ages" and "Renaissance".

My point is that there is a correlation: both ends of the Eurasian civilization went into serious decline in a similar time frame. Not exact, mind you, but with some serious overlap.
 
Strange thought but what if the Japanese became a naval/raiding threat that the Vikings did. A society less focused on conquest but on raiding and pillaging. Could it potentially break up the idea of 'China' as a unified state and more of a geographic expression? Breaking up the Chinese society and internal trade links would definitely disrupt Chinese learning and culture potentially pushing it to a more feudal society.

Either way I'd be fascinated at seeing a TL with some sort of break up of China
 
I am surprised you are asking why the Mongols would boil people alive within sight of the walls before extracting their fat for resources.

No, I asked a different question. This will be more than a little bit gross :)teary:), sorry, but hopefully more clear. Their goal (if the whole story is real) was to get a boiling human fat to be used in a fire bomb. Wouldn't it be easier and more productive, as far as the final result (getting a boiling fat) is involved to kill people, then cut their fat off, then boil the fat and put it into the "bomb" rather than boiling people alive and then getting fat how exactly?

Just think in the terms of an industrial process. In the 1st case you have a clearly defined, rather straightforward and efficient (in the terms of an output) process while in the 2nd it is not even clear how are you going to get the boiling fat. Can you describe your version of a process in a comprehensive way? :confounded:

BTW, this is the 1st time I met that fat-related story. Not saying that it did not happen, just that I did not see similar things being mentioned as a part of the Mongolian practices. Typically, they had been using prisoners to provide the 1st waves of those getting up the walls.
 
No, I asked a different question. This will be more than a little bit gross :)teary:), sorry, but hopefully more clear. Their goal (if the whole story is real) was to get a boiling human fat to be used in a fire bomb. Wouldn't it be easier and more productive, as far as the final result (getting a boiling fat) is involved to kill people, then cut their fat off, then boil the fat and put it into the "bomb" rather than boiling people alive and then getting fat how exactly?

Just think in the terms of an industrial process. In the 1st case you have a clearly defined, rather straightforward and efficient (in the terms of an output) process while in the 2nd it is not even clear how are you going to get the boiling fat. Can you describe your version of a process in a comprehensive way? :confounded:

BTW, this is the 1st time I met that fat-related story. Not saying that it did not happen, just that I did not see similar things being mentioned as a part of the Mongolian practices. Typically, they had been using prisoners to provide the 1st waves of those getting up the walls.

The same way you’d boil the fat out of any meat. Throw the meat in your cooking container with water, raise the temperature. The various parts - skin, bone, flesh, fat - will separate as everything renders down. Fat will settle on the top, naturally (oil floats, after all). You just skim off the top.

You don’t need to spend your time trimming the fat away if all you want to do is get it isolated - the heat and water will do that for you. And thats just discussing rough cuts of meat for rendering/cooking purposes. If part of your goal is psychological warfare, I leave it to others to discuss the efficacy of terror tactics.
 
Just think in the terms of an industrial process. In the 1st case you have a clearly defined, rather straightforward and efficient (in the terms of an output) process while in the 2nd it is not even clear how are you going to get the boiling fat. Can you describe your version of a process in a comprehensive way? :confounded:

BTW, this is the 1st time I met that fat-related story. Not saying that it did not happen, just that I did not see similar things being mentioned as a part of the Mongolian practices. Typically, they had been using prisoners to provide the 1st waves of those getting up the walls.

Fat tends to rise to the surface of water when boiling meat and can be scooped off with ease. Its one of the easier ways to collect brown fat which is the kind found deeper in the body and not under the skin. It is more practical to boil meat rather than carve away at regions you think fat is located.

Terror tactics are also rather impractical in action, but useful in execution (excuse the pun). The Assyrians put a lot of effort into their infliction of terror upon rebellious subjects. One rebel king was buried alive under the decapitated heads of his family and people, city ruins were decorated in impaled corpses. The desired effect is the same. To make people afraid of you so they may surrender quickly, though the Assyrians only had a stick and no carrot.

The Mongols were masters of their own propaganda, allowing people to spread terrible stories about them so that when they arrived the tales of their actions had become exaggerated through retelling and the terrified peoples were ready to surrender. The Christians and Muslims had begun to believe the Mongols were the dreaded armies of Gog and Magog that were unleashed from the worlds end to bring about the Apocalypse. The Mongols rather enjoyed being seen as an apocalyptic terror and thought it was funny to let it go on. The Mongols preferred people surrender through psychological manipulation of their own propaganda so they need not lose their soldiers in conflict, but were prepared to fight if needs be. The Mongolians were far better organised than any previous Steppe peoples and even their seemingly unnecessary acts of terror had a greater purpose in the grand scheme of their expansion.
 
...well that got dark rather quickly!

Moving on, away from the boiling human fat (please!) - there is an argument by some people that the so-called "Dark Ages" never happened, and that in fact "Late Antiquity" was a period of gradual transformation, change and continuity, characterised by vigorous cultural exchange, cross-pollination and debate, all of which led to a productive exchange of ideas.

This is perhaps best epitomised by the television series "The Dark Ages: an Age of Light", presented by British art critic Waldemar Januszczak, in which he basically travels around the British isles, examining the art produced during the "Dark Ages" and marvelling at how imaginative, creative and artistically fulfilling it all is.

Personally, I don't quite buy it. But it is somewhat enjoyable and does make a worthy point that people didn't suddenly suffer from a five-century-long or so lobotomy that rendered them retarded and/or unable to produce anything of value.
 
Top