Philosophy grad?Socrates, Diogenes the Cynic, Aspasia, Epaminondas, Toussaint Louverture, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci, Frantz Fanon, Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault.
Do you mean that after the Mongol conquests stopped and before the Mongol empire fell apart it was a conduit for interchange between Europe and eastern Asia? I do think this point makes sense considering things like Marco Polo.Just found this thread so pardon my timing.
I strongly recommend reading the book ''Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World'' to those interested in this,it's an easy read and can help throw away the ruthless conqueror bias around his figure (which he undoubtedly was to some extent). I'm not implying anything the writer says is right but gives another dimension to the way we think of the Mongols, more like a fertilizer in Europe for Renaissance to thrive and not just a global evil knocking on the door. An empire to connect the east coasts of Asia with the western coast of the black sea.
Yes,but still not necessarily when the conquests stopped, more like when a sizeable country/empire was established. Genghis Khan was really favorable towards trade, merchants and commerce network development while especially foreign trade seems to have been controversial in China. The Mongols feel like they weren't really troubled in various quandaries around bringing together foreign technology and people, but rather encouraging for it when realizing the power they could gain through this.Do you mean that after the Mongol conquests stopped and before the Mongol empire fell apart it was a conduit for interchange between Europe and eastern Asia? I do think this point makes sense considering things like Marco Polo.
I cannot disagree on the fact that the Mongols most likely had been ruthless conquerors, nor am I trying to portrait Genghis Khan as a Saint or liberator. What I try to point out is that there is certainly something more in this man than the fierce military genius often depicted in pop culture. While it is normal for every conversation about him to start on that basis, it seems to me ''unfair'' for his multifaceted personality as a leader.Not saying you are wrong, but at what cost was this achieved? Example given: in hungarian kingdom it is estimated that 40 to 60 % of population was killed or enslaved. And we were "barely touched" by Mongols two times. The destruction of eastern Europe, middle East, central Asia and southeast Asia was as great. Burning books, destroying libraries, hospitals, leveling entire cities to ground and other atrocities...