WI: Genghis Khan focuses on governance more than conquering

It is, tens of millions when you have 400 million people is like 200+ million today. Also apparently the world population went down with his conquest, that rarely happens.
I've adressed this quite a few times on this forum (really, I think I should just write an essay and keep it on my computer to copy and paste).

I'll adress it further in the morning, but the long and short is that we really don't know how many people Genghis Khan did kill.
Between his conquests in China were famine was already in progress and became the leading cause of death, where do we draw the line?
When we look at the major slaughters like the city of Urgench, do we look at the official account by Ata-Malik Juvayni who is also notable for overstating the dead killed in baghdad during Hulagu's time? Or do we look at other contemporary historians who discuss how bustling and populous the city was a mere century after, which it never was after the better documented slaughter by Timur?

And where do we get our analysis? Something which is a constant headache for finding records is that more people want to talk about how many people the Mongols killed and think it synonomous with Genghis Khan (I would be rich if I had a penny for every time I have been told that Genghis Khan burned Baghdad). Weirder still is the trend to assign blame to Genghis Khan specific damage to Persia (as an example) which would actually be commited under the Timur.

In short, there are huge issues with historicity RE the kill count of Genghis Khan. From his own propoganda and that of his family, to common culture conflating his record with multiple peoples and a sometimes unfortunately racist narrative, there is a common trend for modern historians to reevaluate a lot of these claims and his legacy as a whole.
 
Thank you everyone for your precious comments.
Actually, I am working on a game project which dragons exist in the real world(not all of them are big,flying fire breather). The Mongol empire is one of the human factions that have risen recently after the perceptual war between the nomads and settled(the Chinese) Genghis Khan strives to put an end to this endless cycle in this timeline. Dragons have been the main factor that lead to this conflict. I want to make GK looks more like a ruler(similar to Harun al-Rashid) and focus more on rebuilding the shattered nations. However,he is struggling with the worsen relationship between him, his Mongol army and his sons and the stability may not last long. That's why i am asking for opinions on this version of GK.

But if Genghis Khan decides to play nice, will he actually avoid to kill so many people?

(Sorry for my poor English, I am not a native speaker>.<)
 
If I don't defend mongolian warlords, who will? :kissingheart:
I will :)

That isn't a paradox of the nomadic life, that is the unfortunate nature of the premodern era.
Actually it is a paradox of the nomadic life, especially in the Eastern part of the Great Eurasian Steppe, especially in it's worst place - Mongolia proper.
Nomadic way of life makes it impossible to save enough food products for bad times (meat is not grain you cannot save dead animals for years); regular droughts kill most of your livestock and up to 50% of your population.
Which leaves your people principally two main options:
1) either be the poor sufferers dying in numbers and selling their children for a piece of bread
2) or become bloodthirsty monsters murdering neighbors for a piece of bread


With sedentary civilizations it's a little different:
- grain (or rice) is a unique product and can be stored for decades and you can survive occasional droughts.
- if your geographical position is more or less favorable you can fortify your borders and key cities.
So you are not forced to invade your neighbor to get some food just to survive from time to time during the droughts; and you have a chance to outlive a foreign invasion, protected by nature and fortifications; and you have more time and chance for quiet happy peaceful life.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
It is, tens of millions when you have 400 million people is like 200+ million today. Also apparently the world population went down with his conquest, that rarely happens.

The Mongol conquest helped spread of Black Death, so cause of population went down is very hard to separate.

But if Genghis Khan decides to play nice, will he actually avoid to kill so many people?

Probably Yes, some war of conquest would be unavoidable.

Some event might be not happened (his son-in-law killed during Kwarzhem siege - Tanguts refuse to send help during western war) so death toll might be different. But his war of conquest will still cost millions dead, that unfortunate nature of war.
 
I will :)


Actually it is a paradox of the nomadic life, especially in the Eastern part of the Great Eurasian Steppe, especially in it's worst place - Mongolia proper.
Nomadic way of life makes it impossible to save enough food products for bad times (meat is not grain you cannot save dead animals for years); regular droughts kill most of your livestock and up to 50% of your population.
Which leaves your people principally two main options:
1) either be the poor sufferers dying in numbers and selling their children for a piece of bread
2) or become bloodthirsty monsters murdering neighbors for a piece of bread


With sedentary civilizations it's a little different:
- grain (or rice) is a unique product and can be stored for decades and you can survive occasional droughts.
- if your geographical position is more or less favorable you can fortify your borders and key cities.
So you are not forced to invade your neighbor to get some food just to survive from time to time during the droughts; and you have a chance to outlive a foreign invasion, protected by nature and fortifications; and you have more time and chance for quiet happy peaceful life.
I was adressing the fact that if you don't control a territory, you can't administer that territory.
 
How do you know that the famine wasn't caused by him disrupting the Chinese society?
It was around before he began his war with the Jurchen.
Certainly he caused it to be worse, particularly as his usual strategy of herding peasantry into cities to spread fear, but it still leaves a conundrum. How much of the deaths from that famine do we attribute to him? I don't think there is a clear answer.
 
Genghis strategy was the same as Alexander: conquer as far as the eye can see
And both got the same result: dissolution between their generals after death

To allow Genghis Khan a real, long-lasting focus, you would need for him to have a real strategy
 
Genghis strategy was the same as Alexander: conquer as far as the eye can see
And both got the same result: dissolution between their generals after death

To allow Genghis Khan a real, long-lasting focus, you would need for him to have a real strategy
This really doesn't describe Genghis Khan at all.

First of all, Genghis Khan didn't set out to conquer the world in the same manner as Alexander. When he wiped out the Khwarazmian Dynasty, it was due to an extreme diplomatic blunder on the Persian Empire's part when they executed the diplomats of the Mongols and then refused to pay reperations.
When he took on the chinese Jurchen, they had demanded that the Mongols be a vassal state which should pay tribute to them, taking his "no" after years of enslavement and raids by the Jurchen, the Jurchen took this as an act of war and forced his hand.

Second of all, again, the OP is weird because Genghis Khan was actually a pretty effective administrator and had been since his earliest days.
His uprising in Mongolia was incredibly meritocratic in it's appointments which carried on to his reign as he would move administrators around the empire to where they were most needed.
His code of laws and practice were effective enough that (despite the fracturing of his empire) advanced enough infrastructure and policing allowed for a golden age of trade and advancement that arguably only ended with the fall of the Ottoman empire.
 
Anyone is seen as a great person when enough time passes along

Ghengis Khan, Atilla, all geocidal maniacs now considered ebin dudes

Shit, we already see it happening with Stalin. Hitler won't have the same effect though, as he lost
This, though uh..... I dunno about Hitler, who knows what will happen in the future. I doubt centuries in the future people will have any emotional connection to what Hitler did, so....
 
Top