The notion that the modern western society is more bloodthirsty that previous ones is laughably naive. Modern wester society is actually one of the most peaceful we have had in the history of the world even if you take both world wars into account.
In the last century, the death from wars in modern society is 30 times LOWER than that of New Guienia tribesman. Of course, our media is also 1 gazillion times better at sensationalizing war so we all feel that this HAS to be one of the worst points in human history.
Another ( possible ) correction. I was pretty sure that I had read somewhere that the Hepthalites ( White Huns ) were Indo-Iranian, but it may be that I pulled that out of my ass. I am finding conflicting info on that factoid, so probably best to put them down as undetermined as well.
Information towards the end of Richard Rhodes’ “Why They Kill” may enlighten a bit. The model is proposed where there is no public justice (or vengance; whatever way you wish to see it), so the function falls into private hands. Example: If A rapes and kills B’s female relative and there is no leagl system, police, etc. in their society, “straightening it out” falls to B and his kin. B and Co. may not have the means to avenge themselves, and so A is free to continue as before. In any case, violence begets more violence. It is mentioned that they believe that despite all the disease and deprivation of Medieval times, one was still overwhelmingly much more likely to die of what we would call “crime” (private violence).
As I read the OP, the question is referring to a society which is violent by its nature and not necessarily involved in war. I would therefore say that the “prize” goes to that society which is large and sophisticated enough to have a lot of material goods, a large population, and no effective institutions for providing for public safety.
You and a few others have questioned the drastic population declines I cited so I found the following. While I haven’t pinpointed the specific slaughter I was talking about the following data shows the stunning numbers of people the Mongols dispatched. (Sorry I couldn’t preserve the formatting from the original text but I think the details come across).
NOTE: I seem to recall that the Mongols would approach a city and offer an ultimatum. Basically, don’t resist and let us plunder, pillage and raper to our heart’s content or we will wipe everyone out.
Looking at the stats above I’d guess (just a guss) that the millions in a few months came from the three cities wiped out listed under Zingis (4+ million). I don’t know the timeframe of those cities getting scaked though so I can’t say for certain.
Still, note the roughly 30,000,000 deaths laid at the Mongols feet. The only comparable number I can come up with are Russian casualties in WWII INCLUDING Stalin’s purges. Considering the world was less densely populated back in the 1200’s the sheer percentage puts the Mongols in the lead for this thread’s winner I’d say. The Aztecs were certainly brutal but they didn’t hold a candle to the Mongols in the scheme of things.
Whack-A-Mole: The drastic drop in population, in China in particular, I don’t particularly dispute. Nor the destruction of cities with the massacre of populations. So I agree in theory, in the sense that we are talking some truly profound disasters that seemed to have utterly terrified the Mongols contemporaries.
My question is with the quoted figures of 1.6 million for cities like Herat ( and in fact another figure for Herat is even higher at 2.4 million ). As I guessed most of the huge casualty quotes that I would find over the top were from the Transoxiana/Khurasan campaigns in western Central Asia/Eastern Persia. There is just no way that medieval Herat or Nishapur held two million people in the 13th century. If all of Iran, for instance, held 5 million, how did just three cities, three medieval cities in a not terribly hospitable corner of the world ( though granted more hospitable then, than now ) nearly equal that total? The answer of course is that they didn’t - The Sung Chinese capital at Hang-Chou, yes. But even Baghdad was way past its peak in the 12th century ( due in part to an agricultural collapse in Iraq ). Colin McEvedy, for example, notes a drop of of 2.5 to 1.75 million in “Afghanistan” ( which of course didn’t really exist then ) - However Herat is in Afghanistan. So here we have the casualties of a single city as either estimated as equivalent to the entire population, or at least two thirds, of the whole region. Similarly Nishapur is in Persia, which supposedly suffered a loss of 1.5 million, or less than is cited as being lost for that one city. McEvedy’s more scholarly numbers clash with those medieval estimates. David Morgan, in his volume The Mongols ( 1994, 1986 by Blackwell Publishers ) also acknowledges as much.
So I think the ‘millions in a few months’ is likely inaccurate. Many tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, I might buy.
But it is somewhat immaterial, as I absolutely agree with you that the scale of these slaughters were profound relative to the time period.
450BC: Turkic-speaking tribes migrate from Siberia to the steppes north of the Aral and Balkash lakes where they give rise to the Huns
250BC: China repels an invasion by the turkic-speaking Hsiung-nu
220BC: the Hsiung-nu defeat the Yuezhi, who are forced to move south towards Iran and India
209BC: first Hun (Hsiung-nu?) state
History
Mongolia’s history spans 5,000 years. From nomads herding the Central Asian steppe to the formation of the powerful Mongol Empire and the gradual emergence of the Mongolian republic, its history is steeped in conflict.
The first Mongolian state was established in 209 B.C. by Huns or Hunnu people. The name Hunnu comes from two ancient Mongolian words. "Hun means “man” and “Nu” translates as “sun”. The Huns territory stretched from Korea in the Far East to Tian Shan Mountain in Northern China and from the southern section of the Great Wall to Lake Baikal in southern Siberia.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/16/stories/13160611.htm
The Mongols: It was said of the Mongols’ cold savagery that “the few survivors envied the dead”. During their siege of the ancient city of Nishapur in Persia in 1221, an arrow from Nishapur’s walls killed Chenghiz Khan’s son-in-law. According to the historian Will Durant, as many as 1.75 million people were slaughtered in revenge when Nishapur fell - a figure considered to be a possible world record for an individual massacre. Among Chenghiz Khan’s other infamous massacres were the killings of 1.6 million people of Herat, 1.3 million of Merv, one million of Meru Chahjan, and the complete extermination of the Tanguts of China. He and his Mongol successors (down to Timur Lane) slaughtered around 30 million Chinese, Indians, Persians, Arabs, Russians, Europeans and others over a period of about 200 years.
I’m not sure as to whether I should have used quotation marks on the above post. These are actual quote taken from the sources cited above each. I hope I have not violated any SDMB rule by doing so. If I did, I assure you it was unintentional and I apologize for any mistake.
Mods. Please feel free to delete this message if necessary.
Thanks, t-keela
"350: the turkic-speaking Huns move west towards Europe, settling in the plains between the Ural and the Carpathian mountains
450: the mongolian Ruruan (Juan-Juan) empire controlled territories from Manchuria to lake Balkas
451: Attila invades the Roman empire "
Presents a ( superficial ) history of the geographic region we know today as Mongolia. Saying that a Hunnic Empire ( which has been speculated is the same people as the later ‘Black Huns’ and is likely, but is not proven ) existed in that region at one time does not imply any political unity between those Huns and the later Mongols. Quite the contrary, really, as a number of competeing peoples established one (semi-) nomadic empire after another in the region. The reason the Huns ( and Avars et al ) are posited as having invaded the Russian steppes is because they were expelled from the region of Mongolia.
See my comments to Whack-a-Mole. I don’t for an instant discount the Mongols reputation as being overblown in general - Mass murderers they most certainly were at times and even beyond that their extractive, parasitic, often ineptly run economy absolutely wrecked China during their rule, with much loss of life. But most scholars regard the figures cited for Transoxianian/Khurasanian cities to be grossly exagerrated ( those figures are direct quotes from medieval Persian sources by the way ).
Again, I don’t disagree that the Mongols are in the running for nastiest customers to come down the pike, even in terms of sheer numbers. But it is a mistake to equate Attila’s Huns with Chingis’ Mongols, except in the very real sense that both were empire-building steppe chieftains of Altaic language-speaking peoples. Politically/tribally they are probably completely unconnected.
Or to put it another way, calling the Huns “Mongolian” ( which they may or may not have been in a linguistic sense, but probably were once in a geographic sense ), is not the same as saying the were the same people as the Chingisid Mongols. The 'White Huns’are often assumed to have originated in southwestern Mongolia, but as I said many believe they originally spoke an Iranian tongue ( though this is disputed ) and unlike the ‘Black Huns’ or the Chingisid Mongols, they appear to have been more caucasian in features. A brief note on this here : http://www.silk-road.com/artl/heph.shtml
By the way, the Juan-juan are generally associated with the later Avars, not the Huns.
“Or to put it another way, calling the Huns “Mongolian” ( which they may or may not have been in a linguistic sense, but probably were once in a geographic sense ), is not the same as saying the were the same people as the Chingisid Mongols.”
I wasn’t aware that I said they were actually the same people. Although, I can get plenty of sources showing how they can all be considered Mongols.
The cites I linked were just a few sources that I had handy showing the history of Mongolia didn’t start w/ the Khans. (I said I would get some sources)Mongolia as “society” isn’t limited to one “race” of people.
It has a long diverse history that is full of barbaric leaders and followers. From Attila to the Khans, whether they be from the North, South, East or West, from 4th cent. BC to 14th cent AD
Call them Huns, Turks, Chingisid, Black, Blue, White or Gold, they were all from Mongolia at one time and were all a bad bunch.
I just happened to think of Genghis’ horde first.
I wasn’t attempting to contradict anything, if you can give a better example for the OP… I’m all ears!
Actually, after doing a little more research, I’m leaning more and more toward the Aztecs as being more acceptable towards violence in their culture. I was reading a source relating the tale of 80,000 human sacrifices made in one ritual (it lasted several weeks) thousands of small children were torn to pieces while still alive, tens of thousands of virgin women were sacrificed as well.
It was during a drought and they thought this would bring rain!
t-keela: Ah, I misunderstood you then. You seemed to be implying in that ealier post that you were considering the various peoples that appeared in the region that we today call Mongolia to have been essentially the same folks when you said things like “They were basically a huge tribe of barbaric nomads that had been around for centuries bring devastation and death wherever they went.” I think perhaps if this was not your meaning, that you phrased your post a little clumsily, by seemingly equating the Mongols with the Huns as part of a single people/tradition. But maybe it is just my poor reading comprehension.
That was what my correction was based on. My apologies if I confused your comments. The various steppe peoples have indeed been the source of a great deal of misery to each other and various settled peoples throughout history. I certainly don’t disagree there. I’m not sure I’d call them “bad” from a historical standpoint, though I certainly would by the standards of modern civilized sensibilities. They were products of their very harsh environment.
As to the OP, I still don’t think one can come up with a definitive answer. But the Steppe tribes certainly lived rough and violent lives and are definitely in the running :).
note: As the cite I linked above on Hepthalites illustrates, there are multiple theories for the origins of peoples like the Black Huns and Avars. Some think the Avars were Juan-juan, some the Hepthalites. Some think the Eastern Huns were the same as Attila’s groups, some do not. The evidence is unfortunately a bit flimsy in all directions.
"Most Americans and Europeans tend to recognize the more famous of Mongolia’s rulers, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, who extended Mongol power deep into the south and west. In the fifth century, Attila led the Siungnu, or Huns, into Europe all the way to Gaul (France) and the Italian peninsula on the heels of the crumbling Roman Empire. "
“The term “Mongol” was first used by the T’ang dynasty of China (618- 907A.D.) to describe the inhabitants of Mongolia. The Mongols remained a loose confederation of rival clans until the emergence of a new leader in the 12th century. Temujin, later named Genghis Khan (“universal king”), united the Mongol tribes and developed a cavalry using a superior breed of Mongolian horse named the Takhi. Khan’s invasion force took China,”
I was reading a Mongolian History book translated into English it also claims Attila was Mongolian NOT just in his Geography but in his ancestry…it went on to explain the Mongolian use of the word Hun/Hunn and it had very little to do with Geography. That’s not really all that important though, I guess. Didn’t really want to make a great debate out of this.
****************************************************I just read your recent post as I was about to submit this. I can see what you mean regarding my “implication” sorry 'bout that…I wasn’t figuring on having to get too specific. I’ll know better next time.
Anyway, just a final quote for the road…see ya around…
No doubt. I can also come up with some that say they weren’t ( or at least are a bit more equivocal ) ;). It all depends how you define “Mongol”. Geographically, linguistically, culturally, politically, tribally, physiognomically ( i.e. so-called “Mongoloid features” )? You might get different, if sometimes overlapping, answers on all of those criteria.
For example both the modern Mongols and the modern Uighur Turks, who speak related but quite different languages, claim the Huns ( at least the Eastern variety ) as ancestors for reasons of national pride and based on their own ( slightly different ) reading of history. One or another or maybe both might be correct in part. They might both also be wrong. However, though Jomo Mojo would have a better idea of the rates of Altaic linguitic drift and might correct me, I rather doubt that at a separation of 700-odd years that the Huns spoke a fully mutually intelligible language with either the Chingisid Mongols ( proper ) or the Uighurs in the 12th century.
The definition I use is essentially a political one and based on separation in time. There is no political continuity, except in the very loosest, most abstract sense, between the Hun ( either Eastern or Western, ‘Black’ or ‘White’ ) empires and the Mongol empire. The fact that there is a real confusion as to ethno-linguistic and even geographic connections just reinforces this.
For some long discussions of some of these issues and debates, check out:
