What do You think about Genghis Khan And The Making Of The Modern World (2005)?
If you choose to listen to this book as two-part, 14+-hour audio download from Audible, be aware that, although the author's introduction appears as the last chapter of the second part (of two) of the audio download, it could profitably be listened to before the rest of the book. Specifically, the author's introduction explains the history of the long-lost and recently-recovered “Secret History of the Mongols”, which is then referred to without explanation in the body of the text.The author's contention is that Genghis (here pronounced “Jeng-gis”) Khan was a enlightened leader of remarkable foresight who was the first to introduce many of the achievements of advanced societies, for example, freedom of religion, paper money, standardized weights and measures, effective postal services, civil service, organized systems of roads, central banking, public schools, and universal education in the local vernacular. Modern-day partisans of cultures that suffered at the hands of the Mongols are (if writings here at Goodreads and elsewhere are any indication) understandably less than enthusiastic about this thesis, but Weatherford might explain that resentment at Genghis is largely misdirected, as much of the cruelty associated with the Mongols was generated by Genghis's inferior successors, of whom only Kublai Khan managed to decelerate the Empire's decline even temporarily. The author's enthusiasm for all things Mongol gives a pleasantly vigorous narrative drive to the story, but it also leads him to an astonishing moment of statistical illiteracy, or maybe mendacity. While discussing capital punishment under the Mongols, at audiobook part 2, chapter 3, time 19:13, it is stated: “In total, fewer than 2,500 criminals were executed in more than three decades of Kublai's rule. His annual rate fell considerably short of the number of executions in modern countries, such as China or the United States.”While this statement might be true for China, it is probably not true for the United States. The discussion below is based largely on statistics gathered from Wikipedia and guesses made by me. Apologies for any inaccuracies.According to Weatherford, the Mongols may have executed 2,500 criminals during a period of thirty years. It is difficult to guess the average population of the Mongol Empire during that period, but Wikipedia gave a possible figure of 110 million. That works out to 2.27 executions per 100,000 population for the entire period, or an annual rate of .076 per 100,000.Capital punishment in People's Republic of China is difficult to judge because there are no reliable statistics about the number of people executed. Estimates vary wildly, but, based on some numbers on Wikipedia and elsewhere, I chose to start with a low-ball estimate of 3,000 per year, average, over the last thirty years. For the sake of convenience, I used the round number of 1 billion for the average population of the PRC during any given year during the 30-year period. That works out to nine executions per 100,000 population during the period, or an annual rate of .3 per 100,000 per year – almost 4 times that of the Mongol Empire.The United States executed 1,317 people during 1976-2012. To simplify the mathematics and standardize the unit of comparison, I'm going to call that 1,300 during 30 years. This figure, you might notice, is far lower than the 2,500 figure that Weatherford gives for the same period, even before we adjust for differences in population. Unsurprisingly, the total and annual execution rates, adjusted for population (US population = 2.7 times larger than Mongol population), are lower, too. During the entire period, there were .43 executions per 100,000 population. This works out to an annual rate of .014 per 100,000 per year – slightly less than one-fifth of the Mongol annual rate, and incidentally roughly one-twentieth of the present-day PRC's rate. Of course, executing merely one-fifth as many people as the Mongol Empire (and merely one-twentieth as many as the PRC) is not an achievement to be inordinately proud of, but nevertheless Weatherford's claim that the annual execution rate in the Mongol Empire was less than that of the present-day USA is almost certain wrong.Rather than attribute this mistake to malice, I was tempted to write off the fact that Weatherford did not take into account the relative size of the populations of the Mongol Empire vs. the USA to a possible case of innumeracy that, while not inevitable, would not be completely unsurprising to find in a professor of anthropology. However, later in the audio book (part 2, chapter 5, time 12:49), when Weatherford wishes to illustrate the severity of the Black Plague (which contributed to the end of the Mongol Empire), he demonstrates a mastery of these same concepts, meaning, he gives statistically-accurate comparisons of mortality rates as a percentage of the total population of the Plague versus various occasions of modern-day slaughter and/or mass illness. In other words, when doing so will strengthen his narrative, Weatherford apparently can understand and manipulate statistics adequately.Where were his editors? They are supposed to keep the author honest and catch things like this.At moments like these, I'm tempted to put the blackest possible interpretation on things, i.e., to say that this case of America-libeling is another example fashionable USA-bashing in academia. However, I try to keep in mind Hanlon's razor, which states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” That may sound unnecessarily mean, but that's not my intention. I mean to say that writing a long book is hard and sometimes some of the details skitter away from us, go unchecked, and acquire the dignity of publication. It doesn't mean that the whole book should be disregarded.
—David
Би урьд нь Монголын нууц товчоог нэг удаа уншиж байсан. Одоо бараг мартагнаж байгаа. Уншаад тэр тэгсэн, энэ ингэсэн гэсэн болсон явдлыг л мэдсэнээс биш харин тэдгээр үйл явдлуудын учир шалтгаан, ач холбогдлуудыг тэгтлээ ухаарч мэдээгүй. Гэтэл Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World гэдэг энэхүү номыг уншаад Монголын нууц товчоонд өгүүлсэн зарим үйл явдлуудын ач холбогдлыг ойлгож авсан төдийгүй дэлхийн түүхийн талаас олон зүйлсийг мэддэг боллоо. Мөн Их монгол улс дэлхийн түүхэн хөгжилд ямар олон нөлөө үзүүлснийг гадарладаг боллоо.Би юу хэлэх гээд байна вэ гэвэл түүх бол түүх, зүгээр л бичигдсэн зүйл, харин түүхийг тайлбарлаж бичнэ гэдэг бол маш өөр зүйл бөгөөд түүнийг унших нь түүхийг уншихаас шал өөр мэдрэмж, ойлголтыг төрүүлдэг юм байна. Би Тэмүжиний түүхийг мэддэг боловч яг үнэндээ мэддэггүй байжээ. Жишээлбэл, Тэмүжин гэр бүлээ тонуулчдаас хамгаалуулахын тулд Тоорил ханы ивээлд орсон, Тоорил хан түүнийг дэргэдээ авч өөд нь татах гэхэд Тэмүжин татгалзаж энгийн амьдралаар амьдрахыг хүссэн, гэтэл Бөртэ үжинийг Мэргидэд булаалгаад амьдралынхаа хамгийн чухал шийдвэрийг гаргасан нь түүний ирээдүйг өөрчилж их хүн болох замд орсон гэдгийг урьд нь хараагүй байсан. Эхнэрээ эргүүлж авах гэж хөөцөлдөхгүйгээр зүгээр л цаашаа мөрөөрөө амьдарсан бол Есүхэй баатарт эхнэрээ булаалгаад юу ч хийгээгүй Их Чилэдү шиг ердийн нэг хүний амьдралаар төгсгөл болж, түүхэнд тэднийг хэн ч мэдэхгүй өнгөрөх байлаа. Гэтэл Тэмүжин эхнэрээ буцааж авахын төлөө бүх боломжийг ашиглан зүтгэсэн бөгөөд гэр бүл, ахуй амьдралаа хамгаалах, гэр орон, улс ахуйгаа төвхнүүлэх чин хүсэл эрмэлзэл нь түүнийг агуу хүн болоход хөтөлсөн гэдгийг би ойлгоогүй явжээ. Биеэ засаад гэрээ зас, гэрээ засаад төрөө зас гэдэг үг үнэхээр айхтар ажээ. Бурхан халдун ууланд бүгэж байхдаа ямар гурван сонголттой тулгарч байсныг би мэдээгүй. Энэ бол зөвхөн нэг л жишээ нь.Ингээд бодохоор түүхийг унших нэг хэрэг, учир холбогдлыг нь ойлгох бас нэг хэрэг ажээ. Зохиолч энэхүү номыг бичихдээ түүхэн үйл явдлыг бодит өнцгөөс харж, олон хүчин зүйлс, нөхцөл байдлыг тусгаж үзсэний үндсэн дээр үйл явдлыг тайлбарлаж тодорхойлохыг чармайсан ажээ. Энэ номыг уншаад би монголчууд бид түүхээ мэдэх бас л болоогүй байгаа юм байна гэдгийг ойлголоо. Дунд сургуульд Монголын нууц товчоог зүгээр л уншуулж мэдүүлдэг. Харин Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World мэтийн түүхэн зохиолуудыг унших нь энгийн бидэнд өөрсдийн түүхээ ач холбогдлоор нь ойлгоход тусалж байна. Нэг хүний тайлбарласнаар түүхийг ойлгож болохгүй нь зүйн хэрэг хэдий боловч энэ номыг хүн судлаач эрдэмтэн хүн бичсэн болохоор нэг их худлаа юм өгүүлээгүй л болов уу.Энэ ном надад маш их таалагдлаа. Өөрийн түүхээ улам их мэдэх хүслийг бадрааж өглөө. Болж өгвөл Чингис хаан болон Их Монгол улсын тухай дахиад нэг ном уншаад энэ номтой харьцуулж үзмээр байна. Би дэлхийн түүхийг л сонирхоод байснаас биш өөрийнхөө түүхийг тэгтлээ сонирхож байсангүй.Би уншсан бүх номондоо өгдөгийн адилаар энэ номонд таван од өгч байна. Ер нь эцсийн эцэст үнэлгээ өгдөг би хэн юм бэ. Уншаад л сууж байвал барав.
—Батбаяр Т
This is a pretty radical book, and like most revisionist history it goes a little bit overboard with it's thesis: Genghis Khan wasn't a bloodthirsty barbarian, he was the greatest civilizing influence the world has ever seen, bringing peace of rule of law wherever he went!In addition to the amazing personal details presented about Genghis Khan and his early life as an outcast from one of the most obscure fringe nomadic tribes of Mongolia to, well, King of the World, the book does make a fascinating and convincing case for how the Mongols were able to break past entrenched and provincial ways of thinking to create a world view. Also how they made their massive empire a meritocracy. In his effort to save Genghis Khan's image from evil conquerer to good guy he does seem to skip or gloss over a lot of the raping and pillaging that must have happened. Not that I really want to know the gory details, but what's a detailed biography of Genghis Khan without talking about the gore?
—Jamie
