Scan barcode
sokolov's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
2.5
Weatherford is no historian, and it shows. Revisionism in stead of accuracy is not a good trade-off.
forgottensecret's review against another edition
4.0
'In twenty-five years, the Mongol army subjugated more lands and people than the Romans had conquered in four hundred years.'
One can often (justifiably) deceive themselves that since they are born in a no name place, from parents who have jobs that lack station, that they themselves are prevented from reaching heights that the child of a diplomat or royal might see as their natural inheritance. Tejumin, who came to be known as Genghis Khan, is incontrovertible proof against this belief.
'In twenty-five years, the Mongol army subjugated more lands and people than the Romans had conquered in four hundred years. Genghis Khan, together with this sons and grandsons, conquered the most densely populated civilisations of the thirteenth century. Whether measured by the total number of people defeated, the sum of the countries annexed, or by the total area occupied, Genghis Khan conquered more than twice as much as any other man in history.' This continues to the modern today, with 'the majority of people today live in countries conquered by the Mongols.'
Rather than the spectacle of Hamilton hitting Broadway, how about 'the accomplishment of Genghis Khan might be understood if the United States, instead of being created by a group of educated merchants or wealthy planters, had been founded by one of its illiterate slaves, who, by the sheer force of personality, charisma, and determination liberated America from foreign rule, united the people, created an alphabet, wrote the constitution, established universal religious freedom, invented a new system of warfare, marched an army from Canada to Brazil, and opened roads of commerce in a free-trade zone that stretched across the continent.' Of course, Weatherford is hoping to convince us of Genghis's accomplishments, and one must tread carefully in accepting such high claims to be all the work of one man, but how many of the 45 US Presidents has that resume? Just as Britain is near synonymous with its earlier empire, 'As the Mongols expanded their rule, the countries such as Korea and India that have survived to modern times in approximately the same borders fashioned by their Mongol conquerors.' It's intriguing to think that arguably The Seven Years War caused Britain to take control of India from the French, which led to control over that country until the partition in 1947, but weaved into this is that the Mongols created these countries.
One thing I love about reading history, is it allows you to consider interesting thought experiments: 'No one in China had heard of Europe, and no one in Europe had heard of China, and so far as is known, no person had made the journey from on to the other. By the time of his death in 1227, he had connected them with diplomatic and commercial contacts that still remain unbroken.' Around my city, there is just such cosmopolitanism that it is just so unfathomable to imagine only see people of your own nation, but that was the norm everywhere.
Associated with terror or barbarism, I was happily surprised to realise that this was almost the opposite of true. 'He insisted on the rule of law and abolished torture... He refused to hold hostages, and, instead instituted the novel practice of granting diplomatic immunity for all ambassadors and envoys, including those from hostile nations with whom he was at war.' Another contrast to conquerors is their deaths: Alexander the Great would die at age 33 in mysterious circumstances, Julius Caesar would be stabbed to death in the Roman Senate by his fellow aristocrats and previous allies, and more recently Napoleon would die as a prisoner on St Helena. Genghis on the other hand died at 70 years old, 'surrounded by a loving family, faithful friends, and loyal soldiers ready to risk their life at his command.' Similar to how different animals travel in groups: elephants with elephants, wolves with wolves, one can wonder how did nationalities come to mingle? 'The Mongols deliberately opened the world to a new commerce not only in goods, but also in ideas and knowledge. The Mongols brought German miners to China and Chinese doctors to Persia.' Given the extent of the accomplishments which could be listed and listed, 'Geoffrey Chaucer, ,the first author in the English language, devoted the longest story in the Canterbury Tales to the Asian conqueror Genghis Khan.' Over time, given the scarcity of documents on Genghis, mis-characterisations by Voltaire, his image was reframed and in time 'the Mongols became scapegoat for other nations' failures and shortcomings.' It isn't until the so-called Secret History of the Mongols was found in the 20th century that the narrative shifted back again.
For the Mongols, the one God was 'the Eternal Blue Sky', which for Genghis was he often 'felt the presence and heard the voice of God speaking directly to him in the the vast open air of the mountains.. and by following those words, he had been the conqueror of great cities and huge nations.' Not much survives from his early life, although he went 'in search of a wife at the early age of nine' and his mother Hoelun wanted her son to marry, while his father Yesugei 'seemed to have wanted to be rid of him'. He went on to befriend a boy named Jamuka, who would later become an enemy. He could have accepted his fate in the steppe, but given the recurrent raids this would prove impossible: 'If he did not want to live the life of an impoverished outcast, always at the mercy of whatever chose to swoop down on his encampment, he would now have to fight for his place in the hierarchy of steppe warriors; he would have to join in the harsh game of constant warfare had thus far avoided.' As time passed, him and Jamuka became enemies, as both fought for the title of khan with each having followers. Eventually Temujin succeeded and 'rid himself of all the leaders of the Jurkin.' Unlike Napoleon, 'none of Temujin's generals deserted him throughout his six decades as a warrior. In turn, Temujin never punished or harmed one of his generals. Among the great kings and conquerors of history, this record of fidelity is unique.'
Genghis ran his empire in a meritocracy like way, where 'cowherds, shepherds, and camel boys advanced to become generals and rode at the front of armies of a thousand or ten thousand warriors.' There were no military schools, one could really begin from nothing and rise to the most coveted positions. With these generals, 'In a flash, only thirty years, the Mongol warriors would defeat every army, capture every fort, and bring down the walls of every city they encountered. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus would soon kneel before the dusty boots of illiterate young Mongol horsemen.'
Whenever the Mongols captured a place they 'slaughtered the rich and powerful', knowing that it would be then who would renege on the terms of peace, it 'essentially decapitated the social system of their enemies and minimised future resistance.' Weatherford gives comparisons with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who in 1160 'beheaded their prisoners and played with the heads outside the city walls, kicking them like balls', again marking the relative lack of violence from the Mongols who didn't use torture or such disdainful ways of killing.
With his death approaching, he tried to install in his sons a sense of leadership with lessons:
'He can never be happy until his people are happy. Without the vision of a goal, a man cannot manage his own life, much less the lives of others.' Additionally, he cautioned that to rule a people 'you can conquer a nation only by conquering the hearts of the people'. Unfortunately, these teachings amongst others would be ignored by his sons.
After his death, the Mongols expanded further into Europe, and used creative tactics. 'The Mongols had not left the gap open by accident; they had already stationed horsemen to wait for the fleeing, frightened Hungarians. The Mongols had 'destroyed the knighthood of [Hungary] and chased King Bela IV south to the Adriatic'.
There were successful Khans like Mongke, whose brother Hulegu launched an attack on Iran, then took Iraq, and even Syria. In the East, Mongke's armies under his famous brother Kublai, who completed the conquest of China. Kublai's 'genius derived from his recognition that he not conquer all of China by mere force... He won over the population by skilful manipulation of public opinion... He built a Chinese capital, took Chinese names, created a Chinese dynasty, and set up a Chinese administration. He won control of China by appearing to be more Chinese than the Chinese, or at least more Chinese than the Sung.' He unified the country, and even tried to invade Japan but was unsuccessful.
Like all great empires, it eventually faded, in no small part due to the plague in China, whose country had 'reportedly lost between one-half and two-thirds of its population to the plague'. People realised that it spread by commerce, so this began to slow down. When Kublai Khan died, his successors in China they opted out of using a Chinese identity and alienated themselves from the population. The Ming dynasty followed and undone many of the 'Mongol policies and institutions. They expelled the Muslim, Christian and Jewish traders whom the Mongols had encouraged to settle in China.'
Just as Europe has ideals of rulers, it has become that 'Asian intellectuals and activists, found a new hero in Genghis Khan.' In readjusting my view of the Mongols and Genghis in particular, I will conclude with this reevaluation from Jawaharlal Nehru, the father of Indian independence who wrote: 'Genghis is, without doubt, the greatest military genius and leader in history.'
One can often (justifiably) deceive themselves that since they are born in a no name place, from parents who have jobs that lack station, that they themselves are prevented from reaching heights that the child of a diplomat or royal might see as their natural inheritance. Tejumin, who came to be known as Genghis Khan, is incontrovertible proof against this belief.
'In twenty-five years, the Mongol army subjugated more lands and people than the Romans had conquered in four hundred years. Genghis Khan, together with this sons and grandsons, conquered the most densely populated civilisations of the thirteenth century. Whether measured by the total number of people defeated, the sum of the countries annexed, or by the total area occupied, Genghis Khan conquered more than twice as much as any other man in history.' This continues to the modern today, with 'the majority of people today live in countries conquered by the Mongols.'
Rather than the spectacle of Hamilton hitting Broadway, how about 'the accomplishment of Genghis Khan might be understood if the United States, instead of being created by a group of educated merchants or wealthy planters, had been founded by one of its illiterate slaves, who, by the sheer force of personality, charisma, and determination liberated America from foreign rule, united the people, created an alphabet, wrote the constitution, established universal religious freedom, invented a new system of warfare, marched an army from Canada to Brazil, and opened roads of commerce in a free-trade zone that stretched across the continent.' Of course, Weatherford is hoping to convince us of Genghis's accomplishments, and one must tread carefully in accepting such high claims to be all the work of one man, but how many of the 45 US Presidents has that resume? Just as Britain is near synonymous with its earlier empire, 'As the Mongols expanded their rule, the countries such as Korea and India that have survived to modern times in approximately the same borders fashioned by their Mongol conquerors.' It's intriguing to think that arguably The Seven Years War caused Britain to take control of India from the French, which led to control over that country until the partition in 1947, but weaved into this is that the Mongols created these countries.
One thing I love about reading history, is it allows you to consider interesting thought experiments: 'No one in China had heard of Europe, and no one in Europe had heard of China, and so far as is known, no person had made the journey from on to the other. By the time of his death in 1227, he had connected them with diplomatic and commercial contacts that still remain unbroken.' Around my city, there is just such cosmopolitanism that it is just so unfathomable to imagine only see people of your own nation, but that was the norm everywhere.
Associated with terror or barbarism, I was happily surprised to realise that this was almost the opposite of true. 'He insisted on the rule of law and abolished torture... He refused to hold hostages, and, instead instituted the novel practice of granting diplomatic immunity for all ambassadors and envoys, including those from hostile nations with whom he was at war.' Another contrast to conquerors is their deaths: Alexander the Great would die at age 33 in mysterious circumstances, Julius Caesar would be stabbed to death in the Roman Senate by his fellow aristocrats and previous allies, and more recently Napoleon would die as a prisoner on St Helena. Genghis on the other hand died at 70 years old, 'surrounded by a loving family, faithful friends, and loyal soldiers ready to risk their life at his command.' Similar to how different animals travel in groups: elephants with elephants, wolves with wolves, one can wonder how did nationalities come to mingle? 'The Mongols deliberately opened the world to a new commerce not only in goods, but also in ideas and knowledge. The Mongols brought German miners to China and Chinese doctors to Persia.' Given the extent of the accomplishments which could be listed and listed, 'Geoffrey Chaucer, ,the first author in the English language, devoted the longest story in the Canterbury Tales to the Asian conqueror Genghis Khan.' Over time, given the scarcity of documents on Genghis, mis-characterisations by Voltaire, his image was reframed and in time 'the Mongols became scapegoat for other nations' failures and shortcomings.' It isn't until the so-called Secret History of the Mongols was found in the 20th century that the narrative shifted back again.
For the Mongols, the one God was 'the Eternal Blue Sky', which for Genghis was he often 'felt the presence and heard the voice of God speaking directly to him in the the vast open air of the mountains.. and by following those words, he had been the conqueror of great cities and huge nations.' Not much survives from his early life, although he went 'in search of a wife at the early age of nine' and his mother Hoelun wanted her son to marry, while his father Yesugei 'seemed to have wanted to be rid of him'. He went on to befriend a boy named Jamuka, who would later become an enemy. He could have accepted his fate in the steppe, but given the recurrent raids this would prove impossible: 'If he did not want to live the life of an impoverished outcast, always at the mercy of whatever chose to swoop down on his encampment, he would now have to fight for his place in the hierarchy of steppe warriors; he would have to join in the harsh game of constant warfare had thus far avoided.' As time passed, him and Jamuka became enemies, as both fought for the title of khan with each having followers. Eventually Temujin succeeded and 'rid himself of all the leaders of the Jurkin.' Unlike Napoleon, 'none of Temujin's generals deserted him throughout his six decades as a warrior. In turn, Temujin never punished or harmed one of his generals. Among the great kings and conquerors of history, this record of fidelity is unique.'
Genghis ran his empire in a meritocracy like way, where 'cowherds, shepherds, and camel boys advanced to become generals and rode at the front of armies of a thousand or ten thousand warriors.' There were no military schools, one could really begin from nothing and rise to the most coveted positions. With these generals, 'In a flash, only thirty years, the Mongol warriors would defeat every army, capture every fort, and bring down the walls of every city they encountered. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus would soon kneel before the dusty boots of illiterate young Mongol horsemen.'
Whenever the Mongols captured a place they 'slaughtered the rich and powerful', knowing that it would be then who would renege on the terms of peace, it 'essentially decapitated the social system of their enemies and minimised future resistance.' Weatherford gives comparisons with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who in 1160 'beheaded their prisoners and played with the heads outside the city walls, kicking them like balls', again marking the relative lack of violence from the Mongols who didn't use torture or such disdainful ways of killing.
With his death approaching, he tried to install in his sons a sense of leadership with lessons:
'He can never be happy until his people are happy. Without the vision of a goal, a man cannot manage his own life, much less the lives of others.' Additionally, he cautioned that to rule a people 'you can conquer a nation only by conquering the hearts of the people'. Unfortunately, these teachings amongst others would be ignored by his sons.
After his death, the Mongols expanded further into Europe, and used creative tactics. 'The Mongols had not left the gap open by accident; they had already stationed horsemen to wait for the fleeing, frightened Hungarians. The Mongols had 'destroyed the knighthood of [Hungary] and chased King Bela IV south to the Adriatic'.
There were successful Khans like Mongke, whose brother Hulegu launched an attack on Iran, then took Iraq, and even Syria. In the East, Mongke's armies under his famous brother Kublai, who completed the conquest of China. Kublai's 'genius derived from his recognition that he not conquer all of China by mere force... He won over the population by skilful manipulation of public opinion... He built a Chinese capital, took Chinese names, created a Chinese dynasty, and set up a Chinese administration. He won control of China by appearing to be more Chinese than the Chinese, or at least more Chinese than the Sung.' He unified the country, and even tried to invade Japan but was unsuccessful.
Like all great empires, it eventually faded, in no small part due to the plague in China, whose country had 'reportedly lost between one-half and two-thirds of its population to the plague'. People realised that it spread by commerce, so this began to slow down. When Kublai Khan died, his successors in China they opted out of using a Chinese identity and alienated themselves from the population. The Ming dynasty followed and undone many of the 'Mongol policies and institutions. They expelled the Muslim, Christian and Jewish traders whom the Mongols had encouraged to settle in China.'
Just as Europe has ideals of rulers, it has become that 'Asian intellectuals and activists, found a new hero in Genghis Khan.' In readjusting my view of the Mongols and Genghis in particular, I will conclude with this reevaluation from Jawaharlal Nehru, the father of Indian independence who wrote: 'Genghis is, without doubt, the greatest military genius and leader in history.'
maximus_lupus's review against another edition
3.0
Got a bit long winded, more socio-political and less interesting after GK's death...
mastersal's review against another edition
4.0
Listened on audio - highly recommended, the narrator was excellent. Picked this up as an break from the fiction I was reading - which was much needed as it turned out.
In general this book was excellent and I really enjoyed my time reading / listening to it. This is written as more of a narrative which really worked for me. I liked it so much that I picked up the fiction series on Genghis Khan as I wanted to spend more time with the man. His life story was so fascinating. The book proved to be very interesting introduction to the period and Mongol history. For me it worked well as I was not familiar with the Mongols - I knew some of the events but didn't have much background so this provided a great book to whet my interest.
The book does read like a hagiography for Genghis Khan but I think that this is a counterpoint to the typical barbarian narrative used to describe the Mongol. This book really is in conversation with other prevailing myths which does make to difficult to judge this as a standalone history. And I acknowledge that this is probably unfair as this is a history book - but I did note the bias while reading.
However, I will need to caveat that while this book is a great narrative - it reads like fiction and very well told - as an academic text which is a little annoying because I am not sure how he came to some conclusions and what sources he used.
The issue is that the author is contending with sooooo much history that it can’t fully capture the impact of the Mongol. As an example, you need to know who the Golden Horde was or the Illkhanate sultanate to be impressed by the name drop. I also think to keep the "momentum" of the book some of the statements appear without substantiation, which works while reading but does irk me as I wanted to read more around the conclusion and couldn't track it.
In the end, I am going to knock a star for lack of rigour - as a narrative this is a full 5 star but as a history I would appreciated a little more traceability. I also really wanted to understand how much of the book was original research based on his time in Mongolia and what was based on other books. For example, the secret history references was new based on recent world done in Mongolia, which was really cool. However, half of the the book deals with stuff after Genghis Khan's death so is not based on his research. I was confused as to how he came to the conclusions he did so as I history I can’t give this 5 stars.
I would still recommend this as an introduction and for the more general reader than someone who is familiar with the time period and history.
In general this book was excellent and I really enjoyed my time reading / listening to it. This is written as more of a narrative which really worked for me. I liked it so much that I picked up the fiction series on Genghis Khan as I wanted to spend more time with the man. His life story was so fascinating. The book proved to be very interesting introduction to the period and Mongol history. For me it worked well as I was not familiar with the Mongols - I knew some of the events but didn't have much background so this provided a great book to whet my interest.
The book does read like a hagiography for Genghis Khan but I think that this is a counterpoint to the typical barbarian narrative used to describe the Mongol. This book really is in conversation with other prevailing myths which does make to difficult to judge this as a standalone history. And I acknowledge that this is probably unfair as this is a history book - but I did note the bias while reading.
However, I will need to caveat that while this book is a great narrative - it reads like fiction and very well told - as an academic text which is a little annoying because I am not sure how he came to some conclusions and what sources he used.
The issue is that the author is contending with sooooo much history that it can’t fully capture the impact of the Mongol. As an example, you need to know who the Golden Horde was or the Illkhanate sultanate to be impressed by the name drop. I also think to keep the "momentum" of the book some of the statements appear without substantiation, which works while reading but does irk me as I wanted to read more around the conclusion and couldn't track it.
In the end, I am going to knock a star for lack of rigour - as a narrative this is a full 5 star but as a history I would appreciated a little more traceability. I also really wanted to understand how much of the book was original research based on his time in Mongolia and what was based on other books. For example, the secret history references was new based on recent world done in Mongolia, which was really cool. However, half of the the book deals with stuff after Genghis Khan's death so is not based on his research. I was confused as to how he came to the conclusions he did so as I history I can’t give this 5 stars.
I would still recommend this as an introduction and for the more general reader than someone who is familiar with the time period and history.
stacy_wilson's review against another edition
5.0
Fascinating and illuminating. Completely engaging and accessible, this book is a fascinating biography of one of history's most influential individuals. Genghis Khan is responsible for originating some of the most innovative military strategies, uniting and making wealthy the warring Mongol tribes, creating the largest trading economy, and various other groundbreaking concepts such as diplomatic immunity, full religious tolerance, widows' inheritances, meritocratic promotions, etc. Unjustly vilified, Genghis Khan was not the cruel and brutal savage I had always believed him to be. He was truly an outstanding and compelling personality that permanently changed the course of history.
emeraldwhatnot's review against another edition
2.0
Full of unsupported assumptions and willfully blind conclusions. I can't recommend it to anyone.