Attila the Hun vs Genghis Khan

[Lord Hoosier]

I know Genghis is much more significant in history but they seem so similar in how they are portrayed today. Attila always seems to be portrayed a a violent force of nature while Khan seems to get the ruthless conqueror and bureaucrat treatment. Genghis also has gotten a much better image in recent years becoming a paragon of tolerance of all things. However, Attila seems to remain the boogeyman of Late Antiquity especially reinforced in historical gaming by Total War: Attila a few years ago. Does either one deserve their treatment? Do you think within PDS games the Horse Lords and The Cossacks were fair to the Steppe tribes and khanates?

And of course, in a horse archer battle between Mongols and Huns lead by their respective leader, all else being equal, who would come out on top?

 

[Sarmatia1871]

There is no question that Genghis Khan inspired the better music.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

That tiny platform is like a chain in Potgieter's ankle.

 

[Tufto]

I know Genghis is much more significant in history but they seem so similar in how they are portrayed today. Attila always seems to be portrayed a a violent force of nature while Khan seems to get the ruthless conqueror and bureaucrat treatment. Genghis also has gotten a much better image in recent years becoming a paragon of tolerance of all things. However, Attila seems to remain the boogeyman of Late Antiquity especially reinforced in historical gaming by Total War: Attila a few years ago. Does either one deserve their treatment? Do you think within PDS games the Horse Lords and The Cossacks were fair to the Steppe tribes and khanates?

And of course, in a horse archer battle between Mongols and Huns lead by their respective leader, all else being equal, who would come out on top?

Well, the fact does remain that Genghis established a complex, functioning state which was capable of maintaing some degree of central control over most of Eurasia for half a century after his death (and a less centralised control for a century after that) as well as revitalising the Silk Road and kickstarting mass cultural exchange across the Old World, while Attila seems to have just ruled through raiding and enriching his followers and saw his "empire" collapse upon his death. On the other hand, Genghis is probably responsible for the deaths of far more people.

Having said that, I don't think one was especially "worse" than the other- they were both steppe warlords concerned with enriching the pockets of their followers and thus maintaining power, and I am presuming that Attila had the same dehumanising disdain towards sedentary peoples that Genghis did.

The Mongols definitely would win in a battle though, their organisation was just so much better than anything that had come before them on the steppe.

 

[Geriander]

The redeeming revision of Genghis Khan is mostly related to the positive effects of the empire he created. Attilas ”empire” didn’t survive his death and its hard to point out any positive effects that it had while it lasted.

The Huns in general had a very negative impact of civilization in Europe by triggering the migrations that crippled the Western Empire and then going in to kick the corpse themselves.

 

[Sanny]

OP has a point, I've noticed this too.

They say now that Genghis Khan brought the plague with his army to Europe.

 

[Geriander]

They say now that Genghis Khan brought the plague with his army to Europe.

He never went to Europe and the plague arrived 120 years after his death. The trade routes opened by the mongols may have helped it spread across Eurasia though.

 

[LordTempest]

He never went to Europe and the plague arrived 120 years after his death. The trade routes opened by the mongols may have helped it spread across Eurasia though.

The bubonic plague has its origins in Central Asia and came to Europe by way of the Mongols. As you say, Genghis Khan wasn't directly responsible for it -- it wasn't his army who catapulted diseased corpses over the walls of Kaffa -- but it's hard to imagine a scenario where the Black Death arrives in Europe without some kind of Mongol intervention, be it by trade or by military campaign, and that intervention begins with the actions of Genghis Khan some 120+ years earlier.

Thus, in a roundabout way, Sanny's comment is not entirely wrong.

 

[Geriander]

The bubonic plague has its origins in Central Asia and came to Europe by way of the Mongols. As you say, Genghis Khan wasn't directly responsible for it -- it wasn't his army who catapulted diseased corpses over the walls of Kaffa -- but it's hard to imagine a scenario where the Black Death arrives in Europe without some kind of Mongol intervention, be it by trade or by military campaign, and that intervention begins with the actions of Genghis Khan some 120+ years earlier.

Thus, in a roundabout way, Sanny's comment is not entirely wrong.

Wouldn’t it arrive at some point? Even pre-mongols there wasn’t a quarantine seperating Central Asia from Europe and diseases traveled that route before. Less efficient trade routes would make it take longer to reach Europe but once there the death toll could be the same.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Wouldn’t it arrive at some point? Even pre-mongols there wasn’t a quarantine seperating Central Asia from Europe and diseases traveled that route before. Less efficient trade routes would make it take longer to reach Europe but once there the death toll could be the same.

You need fairly direct transmission routes to spread bubonic plague, as the main disease vectors (rodents and their fleas) die of it quite quickly. If there aren't good trade connections, it burns itself out or becomes confined to regions where it's endemic.

 

[LordTempest]

Wouldn’t it arrive at some point? Even pre-mongols there wasn’t a quarantine seperating Central Asia from Europe and diseases traveled that route before. Less efficient trade routes would make it take longer to reach Europe but once there the death toll could be the same.

It was by no means inevitable, no. Remove Mongolian armies and more efficient trade routes from the picture and you slow down the rate at which the plague spread considerably. The only real defence you had against plague in the Middle Ages was the hope that the disease would kill its victims and its vectors quickly before they'd have the chance to transmit the disease. The more factors you remove the greater the odds of this happening, and the most important factors were both tied to the Mongols.

 

[King_of_Spain]

Given we're on the subject, can you guys recommend me some (relatively light) reading on the Mongols from Genghis Khan to Kublai, as an introduction to the conquests and administration of the Mongols? Just want a broad overview...

 

[Tufto]

Given we're on the subject, can you guys recommend me some (relatively light) reading on the Mongols from Genghis Khan to Kublai, as an introduction to the conquests and administration of the Mongols? Just want a broad overview...

David Morgan's The Mongols has been the best since it's publication, but it's rather outdated now. IIRC there was a Cambridge history of them released recently but I haven't read that.

I would recommend avoiding the numerous bad pop-histories on them, like Jack Weatherford, Frank McLynn or Dan Carlin (although the latter is in a different medium so not exactly reading ).

 

[King_of_Spain]

David Morgan's The Mongols has been the best since it's publication, but it's rather outdated now. IIRC there was a Cambridge history of them released recently but I haven't read that.

I would recommend avoiding the numerous bad pop-histories on them, like Jack Weatherford, Frank McLynn or Dan Carlin (although the latter is in a different medium so not exactly reading ).

Cheers!

 

[LordTempest]

David Morgan's The Mongols has been the best since it's publication, but it's rather outdated now. IIRC there was a Cambridge history of them released recently but I haven't read that.

I would recommend avoiding the numerous bad pop-histories on them, like Jack Weatherford, Frank McLynn or Dan Carlin (although the latter is in a different medium so not exactly reading ).

John Man, yea or nay?

 

[Tufto]

John Man, yea or nay?

I have one of his books but have never really read it. I've heard mixed things. Probably on the better end of the pop-history books.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

And of course, in a horse archer battle between Mongols and Huns lead by their respective leader, all else being equal, who would come out on top?

"All else being equal" : ) I like Atilla's chances. I am far from an expert on the time periods or the Command Capabilities of either Warlord, but I'd wager that while neither met the like of the other on the Battlefield, that Atilla would be more inclined to adapt and anticipate his opponent than the other way-around.

Advantage: Atilla.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

"All else being equal" : ) I like Atilla's chances. I am far from an expert on the time periods or the Command Capabilities of either Warlord, but I'd wager that while neither met the like of the other on the Battlefield, that Atilla would be more inclined to adapt and anticipate his opponent than the other way-around.

Advantage: Atilla.

Wouldn't say so judging by the battle of the Catalunian fields. And the Mongols had great generals themselfs. The equivelant Mongol leader for the region would be Subotai and we know he was exceptionaly good.

I think there are a number of reasons why we have a better impression of Ghengis:

1) We probably simply know more about him
2) Genghis had to build his own nation, not inherit it of his father
3) The Mongols effectivly conquered and ruled a number of advanced civilizations, they did more and we know more of the inpact of their rulership.
4) Ghengis seems to have had more vision than Attila who seemed to be more like "the plundering kind of warlord because thats what warlords have to do"

But i think the key difference is that the mongols appear much more meritocratic, most Mongols leaders proved their greatness in spades granted we also know the story's better.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

Wouldn't say so judging by the battle of the Catalunian fields. And the Mongols had great generals themselfs. The equivelant Mongol leader for the region would be Subotai and we know he was exceptionaly good.

I think there are a number of reasons why we have a better impression of Ghengis:

1) We probably simply know more about him
2) Genghis had to build his own nation, not inherit it of his father
3) The Mongols effectivly conquered and ruled a number of advanced civilizations, they did more and we know more of the inpact of their rulership.
4) Ghengis seems to have had more vision than Attila who seemed to be more like "the plundering kind of warlord because thats what warlords have to do"

Excellent points. There was indeed more than a 650-year gap between them. More would be known about Ghengis.

 

[DarthJF]

Given we're on the subject, can you guys recommend me some (relatively light) reading on the Mongols from Genghis Khan to Kublai, as an introduction to the conquests and administration of the Mongols? Just want a broad overview...

Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy by Paul Ratchnevsky is a good one about the life of Genghis himself and not too heavy to read.

About a comparison between Genghis and Attila. The reason why Mongol armies were able to defeat not only sedentary societies, but all the other steppe people they encountered, was because Genghis reorganised the Mongol military structure to a level that the steppes had never seen before. Attila was a great leader for his times, but I don't give him much chance against Genghis' organisational skills.