Jump to content
shadow_of_light

Genghis Khan: fact or fiction?!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Some people believe he was a fake character fabricated by Marco Polo who was an dishonest person and never travelled to middle east and China.

They also give some interesting evidence and reasons which seem to be logical. For example, Mongol horses are unable to make long journeys and that there is no historical military base in Mongolia.
What do you think?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, Mr. Ravid says the city of Balkh was destroyed in an earthquake and not by Mongols and the inhabitants immigrated to Mazar Sharif.

The evidence they give, are interesting but I personally cannot reach a conclusion because it is very difficult to find what exactly happened some centuries ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam. These scholars sound like people who say that you can't be sure that Jesus pbuh and Muhammad pbuhap were real. It sounds like conspiracy with no proof when there is proof that he existed. Genghis Khan lived in 12th and 13th century and there are historical information and facts for people that lived 13 centuries before him or even longer. There is enough information on his life and historians from different parts of the world and universities agree that Genghis Khan is not fictional person.

p.s. just searched Nasser Purpirar and see that he is a revisionist historian.. he questions a lot of other historic events not just Genghis Khan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam. Yes, Purpirar was a revisionist and denied many historical events and figures. I dont agree with everything he said but as to Genghis, the arguments seem very logical. Maybe he existed but not conquered Persia and other kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

According to Pourpirar a few historic sites that are said to be Parthian are either clearly related to Greeks or are modern forgery. He claimed that all inscriptions said to be Sassanid are modern forgeries. He claimed that historical personalities such as Mazdak, Mani, Zoroaster, Babak, Abu Moslem, and Salman the Persian were invented by modern Jewish historians.

Denies the existence of Salman al Farsi (ra), Zarathustra, Mani and Abu Muslim. So he basically denied most ancient Iranian history. @shadow_of_light Why would you consider anything he said? Just because something seems logical doesn't mean it is necessarily true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he denied most acient Iranian history. I dont consider everything he said to be true. I even dont say Genghis existed or didnt exist. The title of the topic is a question.

He and Anoush Ravid offer some strong arguments which we cannot reject without having convincing reasons.

For example, Ravid says if Mongols conquered Persia, there would be something in the museums which would prove it while there isnt any.

There is no historical castle or military base in Mongolia where mongol soldiers would be instructed.

It is said Mongols were chronic alcoholics. So how could they be great conquerors?

He says Marco Polo fabricated stories about Mongols while he was in prison in Venice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He says in Vatican archives there is no letter in Mongolian but too many letters in Persian.

It is said that the city of Neishabur had a population of more that 1 million before being completely destroyed by Mongols but this number is unlikely to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

Genghis Khan was a real historical figure and his military prowess enabled him to claim vast swathes of land, and ultimately set the stage for his children to inherit. I will present my argument in the following steps:

Step 1: The Mongols did not have any prominent literature prior to and during Genghis Khan's early reign for the most part. That changed with the introduction of the Secret Book of Mongols, commissioned by Genghis himself. Now considering the dearth of written material from Mongol sources, it is quite logical that Genghis exaggerated his claims as conquerors are wont to do (case in point, Cesar's Commentaries). But reading the literature of those kingdoms that Genghis overcame provides proof of his conquering abilities. The Xi Xia kingdom was brought down by Genghis before he went on to attack China proper, and their sources mention devastation galore.

Step 2: Genghis started out as a young man whose own tribe disowned him after his father's death. Left for dead, he survived the Mongol winter with his brothers. You mentioned that alcohol's prominence in Mongol culture makes it less likely for them to be conquerors. On the contrary, alcohol has historically formed a part of soldier's rations around the world. The Roman Army issued rations containing wine, and so did the Hellenic armies of Ancient Greece. France's military still does, I believe. The Mongols were raised in a harsh environment, and braved many winters before coming to maturity. Furthermore, the tribal warfare rampant in that society meant plenty of practice for any would be warrior to hone his skills (female warriors were rare, if not unheard of). Genghis unified the tribes under his command. This is arguably the greatest rags to riches story in history. Furthermore, Genghis and his brothers definitely had the temerity and strength to be conquerors. They were raised as warriors, and went from being rejects to controlling all the Mongol tribes (one Mongol Nation)

Step 3: Genghis sent his tumans north under the command of his greatest general, Tsubodai Bahadur. This army has historically been proven to have defeated the forces of the local populace, crossing into Russia and destroying key cities like Kiev and Moscow, to name but a few. The Russian winter certainly did not defeat the Mongols, for the Mongol winter is notoriously harsh.

Step 4: The Mongol ponies were not bred for speed, but for endurance.Their short stout frames provided Genghis' forces with an expansive deployment capability. Riders used to nick their horses veins to mix some of the blood with curdled milk. The Mongol diet also included high amounts of protein, fat and calcium. 

Marco Polo was definitely dishonest, but he also stayed at the court of Kublai Khan who was Genghis's grandson. The Mongols prospered because despite their lack of culture in terms of writing and recording history, they readily embraced other cutures for the most part. Had Genghis not ordered his forces to pull back from Russia (even though they were still winning) the world map today may have been different. Genghis was real, and Genghis did great things. Not good things, but great. Terrible and bloody things, but great. He destroyed Balkh, conquered Samarkand, defeated the Tartars, the Chin, The King of Kiev Rus, and many more. For more information, please consult Jack Weatherford's excellent book on the Mongols and Genghis. I forgot the name. It seems foolish to just cite one source but this book, in my humble opinion, is one of the best (if not the best), and it in turn cites reliable sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Thank you for sharing your arguments. But why do you call Genghis a great person? He was so bloodthirsty that ordered his soldiers to destroy everything and kill everyone including children and animals. When they left Neishabur, it was completely a dead city.

Anoush Ravid offers much evidence for his claim. He says those who invaded Russia, Anatolia, ... were not Mongols but a group of Iranian Khans from an ancient Iranian province called Chin/ Sin/ Turkistan/ Chin va Machin. These group of Iranians were called Moghols.

He also says that Mongolia was called something else in that time.

According to Ravid, Mongol horses used to live in very cold weathers and therefore unable to survive in central parts of Iran.

He says that in Russia and north of Europe, people tried to merge these horses with other races because they were not useful for military purposes.

He says there is nothing in Iran which proves that one day it was invaded by Mongols.

 

Edited by shadow_of_light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hameedeh said:

@shadow_of_light 

Does Ravid live in Iran? Maybe he never watched the famous series Sarbedaran:itsok:

Yes, he lives in Iran. This is his blog:

http://arqir.com/

He has a channel in telegram, too.

And unlike Purpirar (who was called a pan-Turk by his enemies), he is a nationalist (but an anti-Aryanist, as well).

He must have seen that famous series.

Well, I personally wish that the whole story of Mongol invasion is fake because being fake means that those terrible atrocities never occured.

He also argued that invasions of Iran by Alexander and Arabs are 2 historical lies. I personally dont 100% accept what he says nor do I deny. History is a mixture of facts and fictions. It is very difficult to find out what exactly happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

He must have seen that famous series.

Well, I personally wish that the whole story of Mongol invasion is fake because being fake means that those terrible atrocities never occured.

He also argued that invasions of Iran by Alexander and Arabs are 2 historical lies. I personally dont 100% accept what he says nor do I deny. History is a mixture of facts and fictions. It is very difficult to find out what exactly happened.

Thank you, Sister. I remember that Sarbedaran serial was very realistic in showing the oppression of the Mongols but it was not overly exaggerated. Also it was clear that others even Persians were also cruel toward their own people. As you know, the Iranian serials and films have more than one ayatullah who watch them and ask to edit out anything that is not according to fact. If the dialogue needs to be changed, that specific part will be removed or dubbed with more accurate dialogue. This is one reason why it takes so long to get the serials and films released to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hameedeh said:

Thank you, Sister. I remember that Sarbedaran serial was very realistic in showing the oppression of the Mongols but it was not overly exaggerated. Also it was clear that others even Persians were also cruel toward their own people. As you know, the Iranian serials and films have more than one ayatullah who watch them and ask to edit out anything that is not according to fact. If the dialogue needs to be changed, that specific part will be removed or dubbed with more accurate dialogue. This is one reason why it takes so long to get the serials and films released to the public.

Khahesh mikonam Hameedeh jan! Yes, it was a beautiful series. Ravid doesnt deny Ilkhanian dynasty. He believes Ilkhany governors were not Mongols' decsendants but a group of khans from an ancient province called "turkestan".

Yes, kings, whether they were Persian, Arab, Mongol, or ..., were mostly very cruel. Power makes some people pitiless and selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • سبحان الله Salam Alaikum, oh brothers and sisters around the globe! Jazak Allah Khair! POEM: When a Believer was made visible to them, And he tells to those who may be guided about the true Submission, By the Lord of the Seven Heavens, Those are who reject the true Submission, Those to who the Heavens are shown, And they shall say: These are clouds on top of the other! Indeed, They shall not but make themselves useful, This is a reminder for those who may be guided.
    • I just want to recite few verses of Chapter 47 of Qur'an e Majeed: Surah Muhammad, Verse 25:
      إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ارْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الْهُدَى الشَّيْطَانُ سَوَّلَ لَهُمْ وَأَمْلَىٰ لَهُمْ Surely (as for) those who return on their backs after that guidance has become manifest to them, the Shaitan has made it a light matter to them; and He gives them respite.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Muhammad, Verse 26:
      ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لِلَّذِينَ كَرِهُوا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ سَنُطِيعُكُمْ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَمْرِ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِسْرَارَهُمْ That is because they say to those who hate what Allah has revealed: We will obey you in some of the affairs; and Allah knows their secrets.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Muhammad, Verse 27:
      فَكَيْفَ إِذَا تَوَفَّتْهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ يَضْرِبُونَ وُجُوهَهُمْ وَأَدْبَارَهُمْ But how will it be when the angels cause them to die smiting their backs.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Muhammad, Verse 28:
      ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اتَّبَعُوا مَا أَسْخَطَ اللَّهَ وَكَرِهُوا رِضْوَانَهُ فَأَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ That is because they follow what is displeasing to Allah and are averse to His pleasure, therefore He has made null their deeds.
      (English - Shakir)
    • He just wants to have a physical relationship with you. Is he your fiance? or are you planing to marry him?
    • Entire azadari is not an obligatory act of worship. Meaning there is nothing wajib in it.  Do whatever you can and do it with sincerity - that's all brother.
×