|
 |
Portrayal of conquerors | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Cultural Experiences in Foreign Languages |  | |
| Alkeides Senior Member Bhutan Joined 6148 days ago 636 posts - 644 votes  | Message 1 of 13 14 November 2008 at 3:48am | IP Logged | ||
|
I was watching this film called "Mongol" about Genghis Khan's life and just thought about this topic.
Genghis Khan seems to be portrayed as a mad bloodthirsty tyrant in the West, but in the East, he is regarded as hero, even by descendants of populations that he conquered. Even some nationalistic PRC citizens whom I know regard him as a great leader and a hero. In the West however, he is credited for razing cities to make room for horses? He also seems to be regarded as a monster by Arabs who think that his descendants restricted the advance of Islamic culture by razing Baghdad. Alexander the Great, I've heard, is regarded as a monster too, by the Iranians and Zoroastrians for destroying their empire. Most conquered cultures have historically regarded their conquerors as evil or barbaric, and indeed the Chinese of the Song and Ming dynasties thought that too. So it is a mystery to me why modern Chinese regard the Mongolian khans as heroes. Incidentally, does anyone know whether the voices for that film "Mongol" were dubbed? Many of the cast, including the protaganist, were not Mongol. If they were all able to speak Mongolian, I'd be quite impressed. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 2 of 13 14 November 2008 at 9:23am | IP Logged | ||
|
I think that the modern Chinese view of the Mongols is less nasty than that of Western or Arab views because of how the Mongol dynasty in China operated.
Most of what is now China was not unified territorally until the Mongol (Yuan) dynasty. Before that, the Chinese dynasties encompassed less territory, and if they weren't terribly fragmented they were often divided into northern and southern realms/dynasties. Thus proponents of unified China (usually nationalists) don't mind that consequence of Mongol rule. Another thing is that under the Mongol dynasty, the Chinese had the good fortune of being ruled for a few decades by a relatively enlightened Sinophile, Kublai Khan. Kublai's interest in Chinese culture and customs allowed Chinese arts, science, commerce and philosophy to develop relatively peacefully compared to the experience of Mongol dynasties in the Middle East or Eastern Europe (even under Mongol rule, the description by Marco Polo of a technologically-advanced or culturally-sophisticated Far East was greeted with disbelief by western Europeans) In contrast, rule in the Mongol dynasties outside the Far East was marked by a relatively smaller willingness to adapt to the culture of their subjects. This more aloof stance of governance has been passed down to successive generations in these regions as an unhappy period in their respective histories (not so much in the Middle East where the dynasty was gradually absorbed by its Persian subjects but it's very true in Eastern Europe where it has been argued that some of the fatalistic or even brusque attitude of some Eastern Slavs today is a legacy of harsh Mongol rule. One wonders what Middle Eastern or European associations with the Mongols would be today if their ancestors had lived under rulers such as Kublai) 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Alkeides Senior Member Bhutan Joined 6148 days ago 636 posts - 644 votes | Message 3 of 13 14 November 2008 at 10:47am | IP Logged | ||
I don't think the Mongols united the Chinese-speaking part of East Asia precisely but they certainly did absorb and assimilate the northern tribes that constantly invaded China before their time. The Manchus eventually did revolt against the Ming dynasty again but that was several centuries down the line. I get the impression that the Mongols' invasion strategy might have killed millions of poeple, but life under their rule was not as oppresive as depicted by European sources. They also introduced Chinese advances in government into Eastern Europe, like the postal system, population censi, and Mongolian advances in military organization. Besides Khubilai Khan, there were also a few Khans in the west who were educated and cultured men, like Ghazan Khan. They were also religiously tolerant and the western Mongols, after absorbing the Turks, converted to Islam quite early on in their invasion. (They also used many Muslim administrators in the Ilkanate and those khanates did later on come to be religiously biased.) Some descendants of the Golden Horde also converted to Orthodox Christianity and even noble families of Russia had some Mongol blood. Their sponsoring of Islam might have led to the ultimate decline of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism in Central Asia though, along with the displacement of Iranian languages by the Turkic languages. In view of that, I really don't understand why the Arabs in particular should view the Mongol conquest in such a bad light. To my understanding, the peak of Baghdad's golden age in the 9th century had long since passed by the time the Mongols invaded, due to existing political strife within the Caliphate and the Turks. The ultimate downfall of the Mongols seems to me to have been due to their infighting for succession, which was partially to the western Khanates' conversion to Islam and the multitude of descendants of Genghis Khan. The story of Genghis Khan, if the Secret History of the Mongols is based on truth, seems really inspiring to me. More than once in life he had been reduced to almost no material possessions and yet he managed to build everything back up again, unite the Mongol tribes and conquer much of China and Central Asia. He managed to give the Mongols a writing system, discipline and laws despite being illiterate. By the time of his sons, their conquered territories combined spanned most of Eurasia. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 4 of 13 14 November 2008 at 11:56am | IP Logged | ||
|
I'm inclined to believe that the unity under the Mongols was the most lasting one. The territory/"shape" of the Ming and Manchu dynasties bear more similarities to the shape of the Yuan Dynasty than say the Tang or Song empires. Before the Yuan Dynasty, there were four realms on what is now Chinese territory: Nanchao, Song, Jin and Tangut. As a side note, it's interesting to me that Tibet was first brought under a "Chinese" sphere during the Mongol era. Previous dynasties never seemed to have bothered with Tibet.
I think that the Arab view of the Mongols is affected by the fact that by the time the Mongols began to assimilate into the Middle Eastern ways of life, the memory of their destruction of other Islamic states was just too horrifying to erase. Whatever benefit the Mongols brought to the Middle East by restoring and reconstructing what is now Iran seems overlooked by many Muslims. I'm curious however whether this negative attitude among people from the Middle East is divided on ethnic lines of Arab versus Iranian (obliquely Sunnis versus Shites). In addition, the defeat of the Mongols at Ain Jalut by the Mameluks of Egypt is viewed by Arabs as a great victory of Islamic arms over the "barbaric" Orientals, and perhaps a reinforcement or vindication that the Mongols could never have aspired to something greater than time-honoured Middle Eastern customs or culture. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| William Camden Hexaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6272 days ago 1936 posts - 2333 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, French | Message 5 of 13 03 December 2008 at 9:18am | IP Logged | ||
|
In Soviet times, Mongolia was the closest state to the USSR politically, but one area of difference was Genghis Khan. In the Soviet interpretation, he and his successors were barbarians. In Mongolia, he was and is the principal national hero.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Qinshi Diglot Senior Member Australia Joined 5753 days ago 115 posts - 183 votes Speaks: Vietnamese*, English Studies: French, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 6 of 13 27 February 2009 at 1:47pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Most Vietnamese have respect for him even though his successors tried to invade Vietnam three times, but failing all three times. :)
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| bekus Triglot Newbie Mongolia Joined 6110 days ago 5 posts - 5 votes Speaks: German, Mongolian*, English Studies: Russian | Message 7 of 13 03 March 2009 at 1:31am | IP Logged | ||
|
Hi Qinshi,the Mongols were in also in Vietnam. But it wasn´t much interesting for the conquerers to stay there because there was no place and enough feed for the horses ;-)
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Qinshi Diglot Senior Member Australia Joined 5753 days ago 115 posts - 183 votes Speaks: Vietnamese*, English Studies: French, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 8 of 13 04 March 2009 at 9:29am | IP Logged | ||
According to history, it says that they demanded passage through to conquer the Champa kingdom, but the kingdom of the Vietnamese refused. Hence, the Mongols attempted to invade the Vietnamese kingdom. However, after 3 successive failures a declining hold on their empire they eventually lost their former power. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
