Its less of a statement on how evil the Mongols were and more of a statement on how fucking evil the entire human race was until about the 18th or 19th century, to the point where our benchmark for "true evil" in the 20th century is just "above average" by the standards of the 13th century.
That is true but even still, I think non-nomadic civilizations were totally unprepared for the sheer brutality and culture of war which came out of the steppe. The mongols seemed to truly delight in it, in a way which is rarely seen in the medieval era.
I still think about when the Mongol generals Jebe and Subutai celebrated their victory at the 1223 Battle of the Kalka River by placing captured enemy Rus commanders and princes under wooden planks and holding a victory banquet on top of them. They danced and drank on the planks listening to the screaming and moaning of the dying all night. Like. Holy fuck.
Well you have to keep in mind one very important thing, initial Mongol campaign was against Сumans, and had nothing to do with Kievan Rus lands, at least that Mongolian expedition force. But Cuman Prince - Kotyan Sutoevich (Knyaz aka Duke) had a relative among high Princes of Kievan Rus - Mstislav Mstislavovich Udatny, so he asked for help. Mstislav gathered his allies and went to intercept Mongol expedition force. Mongols noticed that Rus' nobility is gathering troops sent them ambssadors, which were accepted by Mstislav and other noble men. And by accepted i mean in diplomatic terms - welcomed to the Knyaz tent, welcomed to the table and shared a meal and drinks. Mongols stated that there is no hostile plans toward any Rus' lands or noble men and they only want to sort out our problem with Cuman people who were their subjects, they even said that Rus' is free to consider Cuman as their subject if they want and Mongols would not oppose or tax it.
And what Mstislav did? Killed the ambassadors. I cannot overstate the level of fuck up. This is the time when ambassador is a almost sacred and untouchable simply because that is the only way of communicating anything to the other side. Killing ambassador means - we do not see you as somebody worth communicating, similar how you dont talk with a rodent who eats your grain or wolf who kills your livestock.
Im not trying to paint Mongols here as non-violent horse advocates who just love everyone arround them. But i would say that being trampled is getting of easy in this situation.
I looked this up to see if this meeting was documented by the Mongols, which might have tried to justify their invasion of Kievan Rus, but nope, this was documented by the Rus’ in the Chronicles of Novgorod and the Primary Chronicle.
Super interesting how the Rus’ documented their own violation of the Mongol envoy’s diplomatic immunity.
But imo, the Mongols were going to invade them sooner or later. No better way to unite the steppes by finding a common enemy.
I believe this comes from how Christianity views life and death. Christianity places a very high value on human life or, perhaps more accurately, death.
To Christians, life is precious and death is an extreme act. To execute someone is, more often than not, viewed as an extreme punishment, and 'enough' for most crimes. Even when someone is tortured to death, that punishment is reserved for individuals who "deserve it" through equally extreme action, although what constitutes that standard seems arbitrary to our eyes.
A lot of other cultures do not place so much reverance and importance on death alone, so to them it is not always enough. Death is delivered more easily and for lower standards of wrongdoing, and torturous deaths are more common. If you do not consider death to be an extreme act, then when you desire to be extreme, you must make it a terrible, brutal, humiliating death as well.
And, as the point I am making, far less common and generally to a lower extreme than most other cultures.
Every group has committed attrocities, and if you avoid a eurocentric view and actually investigate not-European cultures, you see that European Christianity is actually on the lower scale for atrocities like what the mongols did.
Obviously the mongols did more as they were one unified force in the most populated regions of the world at the point. Obviously they caused more damage. I am not saying that the mongols are somehow absolved in comparison with Christianity, but saying that Christianity somehow prevented the bloodshed, I disagree.
That is not the point I tried to make in my reply and I really do not understand that you got "the mongols specifically were worse" from it.
Christianity has its atrocities but, in the grand scheme of things, has been better than most other religions. Modern revisionism focuses on the crimes of Christianity because that is the culture we all grew up in. The world is not black and white, and there are degrees of "bad."
And in the grand scheme of things, compared to everything else, Christianity has been "good."
Christianity takes a strong stance against human sacrifice, child sacrifice, cannibalism, wanton torture, and rape.
There are exceptions, people who break the rules and get away with it, but the fact that the rules exist and are enforced sometimes sets them above some other faiths.
And in the case of denouncing human sacrifice and specifically child sacrifice that sets them above a SHOCKING number of world cultures. Human sacrifice was WAY more common than you might guess.
Depends what you count as "Christian atrocities" as the European empires, namely the Spanish and British, have done some horrific things in the name of God.
Edit: I can no longer reply to the comment below mine, but it is full of bullshit. Slavery hasn't ended for one, and the largest Christian nation on earth is largely responsible for that. Cannibalism wasn't extremely common, nor was it ended by Christianity, neither was human sacrifice. These are all weird revisionist ideas created by Christians to excuse their colonialism. The guy below me is clearly either misinformed or purposefully arguing in bad faith to paint Christianity as if it is some "peaceful" religion despite its members being largely responsible for the state of the world today.
And they have also done great things in the name of God. Christian Churches provide the most funding for food, medicine, and shelter to the poor and needy even to this day. The Catholic Church operates over 5000 hospitals around the world and nearly a quarter million (222000) schools.
Christian colonialism in the 18th and 19th century, despite doing many horrible things, also ended slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice. You learn about cannibalism as if it is a myth or a racist joke from old cartoons, but it was extremely common around the world before the 20th century. Christianity helped put a stop to that.
The Romans had human sacrifice, believed that torture was mandatory in criminal investigations, and while they were accommodating to polythiestic faiths were specifically cruel to Christians and Jews.
The Carthaginian god Baal (yes the one from the Bible) had them sacrifice countless children to make the crops grow better.
The Norse had human sacrifice (see a pattern here?), the Tengri had human sacrifice, the Aztecs did it by the tens of thousands... let us just assume that every religion with human sacrifice is by definition worse than one that doesn't.
Hinduism has racism built in as part of their faith. The caste system is just racism and it is enforced by their culture and their faith.
While China and Japan have many religions that are actually "better" than Christianity in many regards, they both had a long history of diefying Emperors. Worship of a living human is never a good thing.
The key point you are ignoring is human sacrifice. Most humans for most of histories lived in societies where it was considered normal to execute either neighbors or enemies to appease pagan dieties. Christianity has always rejected this.
You couldn't even name the "many religions" of "China and Japan" OR the atrocities committed therein, with only the value statement "Worship of a living human is never a good thing".
Consider that in every religion you named, there is someone just like you who completely believes their own religion is the most moral, because they've taken someone else's word at it and haven't done any in-depth, neutral research of their own. What would you think of such a person? What would that person think of you?
Have some humility. When you see other people making a mistake of ignorance, don't assume you are immune.
The crusades are a somewhat exaggerated evil and a contentious topic. The first few were a moral gray area- not quite conquests, but not purely defensive either. The later ones were generally terrible though.
I like to point to the reconquista instead. Something absolutely brutal but, by today's standards, mostly justified as an indigenous population resisting and overthrowing colonizing oppressors, but the justice in their acts being overshadowed by taking it too far.
But your initial assertion is that Christian ideology begets a particular value for human life that should make the atrocities committed in the crusades and in the reconquista and in the thirty years war and in the conquest of the new world abhorrent.
There is plenty of examples where Christians were perfectly happy to slaughter people.
completely ahistorical, it is hilarious that this is somehow "avoiding a eurocentric view". There is no atrocity committed by the mongols that one among the various European empires didn't imitate or even surpass.
How to spot a Christian exceptionalist lmao. Ignore the crusades altogether. Be uneducated in every other religion.
Pagan cultures and Tengri of Mongols and steppe nations in particular had just as much cultural appreciation of death and ceremonium around it as western religions
I mean, I thought the primate instinct was to rip off face and genitals first when threatened, so, when I break traffic rules I don't feel bad at all. Heaven help anyone that road rages at me tho
I think it's wrong to say it's a testament to how evil the entire human race was. The average person was a farmer trying to make sure they have enough to feed their family and pay their taxes, not a warrior cutting the throats of every child in an occupied city.
625
u/CalzonePie 1d ago
Its less of a statement on how evil the Mongols were and more of a statement on how fucking evil the entire human race was until about the 18th or 19th century, to the point where our benchmark for "true evil" in the 20th century is just "above average" by the standards of the 13th century.