Mongol

[Mark]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/picturehouse/mongol/

Has anyone seen an advance screening? What's the word on this one?

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I'm going to go see it tomorrow, so I'll let you know my thoughts then.

 

[Dog Moon]

Huh, first I've heard of it, but I'll definitely think about checking it out.

*loves war movies with swords and arrows and horses and stuff*

 

[Mark]

Certainly looks like they managed to pick up some extras for the armies (I don't think they went with a CGI cast of thousands).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

www.mongolmovie.com

I'm really excited for this, going to see it on Sunday. I've been reading around about it. Apparantly, they only had a bdget of around $20 million to do what is in the "epic war" genre, and still managed to land an actor from Zatoichi, a great Finnish composer (just listen to those samples, I love the music!), and cast and crew of over 40 different nationalities. Still on music, if you follow the picture link to Altan Urag's site, they have some music videos posted via youtube, they are also amazing.

This is apparantly (hopefully) the first movie of a trilogy, spanning from Genghis Khan's childhood up to 1206, when he unites all the Mongol tribes, and mostly focusing on the hardships and bondage he endured and his romantic relationship with Borte (ie, potential "date movie." I'm taking my fiance, who normally dislikes history and war/fighting scenes, but likes lord of the rings, we'll see how that goes).

It looks to be "historical fiction," mainly because the director admitted there was a dearth of information available compared to all the major events that occured, so he had to kind of get in Temujin's mindset. And it's a film, so I absolutely expect added drama and such.

It's just nice to see a work like this, detailing Genghis Khan as he truly is, a valiant hero. It's really sad that of pretty much every review I read online, the author felt the need to state something like "The Genghis Khan of this movie is not the bloodthirsty, satanic tyrant we usually think of him as..." Hopefully this movie will do some good to reversing the prejudiced views western history holds of him, a man who was the Mongolian equivalent of the American founding fathers all rolled into one, and whose progressive policies, such as religious tolerance, greater rights for women, promoting people based on merit, and scaring foes into peaceful surrender to conquer with minimal loss of life were all far ahead of his time, and far ahead of those other peoples who looked down on him as a "barbarian." If not, the fight scenes should be awesome at least.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

All I know for certain is that this is a movie I've wanted to do for a long time, so I've definitely got some high expectations!

 

[Huw]

It's just nice to see a work like this, detailing Genghis Khan as he truly is, a valiant hero.

You're kidding right? He makes Hitler look like Gandhi. This is the guy who destroyed two civilisations (Xixia and Khorezmia), raped so many women that a quarter of Asia are now descended from him, and gave orders that on his death, everyone who knew where his tomb was or even saw the funeral procession should also be put to death.

In short, he was a bloodthirsty tyrant. Concentrating on the other aspects of his life is good, as it makes for an interesting film. But don't call him a valiant hero when he truly wasn't.

I'll wait for the other two films before passing final judgement (on the films that is, not Genghis).

 

[Tonguez]

You're kidding right? He makes Hitler look like Gandhi. This is the guy who destroyed two civilisations (Xixia and Khorezmia), raped so many women that a quarter of Asia are now descended from him, and gave orders that on his death, everyone who knew where his tomb was or even saw the funeral procession should also be put to death.

Do you really beleive this propaganda?

Firstly none of these supposed atrocities was out of character for EVERY leader of the time - and the use of fear tactics was simply an effective outcome of Mongol strategy, and secondly most the atrocities you mention didn't actually happen (at least not directly) or have been vastly exagerrated.

The invasion of Xi Xia was a relatively normal battle which demonstrated effective use of military strategy and forced the Xia to surrender, it was not the total destruction you refer to.
And although the invasion of Khwarezmia was brutal (even by Mongol standards) it was 'justified' because the Khwarezmids had executed Mongol merchants and shaved and beheaded sacred ambassadors sent by Genghis Khan who only wanted to establish trade relationships.

As for the orders that on his death, everyone who knew where his tomb was should be killed. First this is legend with no corrobarating facts and second this practice isn't that unusual for the time

In short, he was a bloodthirsty tyrant. Concentrating on the other aspects of his life is good, as it makes for an interesting film. But don't call him a valiant hero when he truly wasn't.

Genghis Khan unified formerly warring clans, established and effective peace across the worlds largest empire which encouraged east-west trade and the desimination of ideas. Of the nations who were conquered the Great Khan allowed the native peoples to hold office, to join his armies and to live their lives. He allowed all religions to flourish in his domains and was generally considered generous to those he liked.

Gengis Khan should be consider as much a hero as any other pre-modern leader, and in my opinion more so than many

 

[Huw]

The invasion of Xi Xia was a relatively normal battle which demonstrated effective use of military strategy and forced the Xia to surrender, it was not the total destruction you refer to.

And after they surrendered, Genghis had the royal family executed and Xixia completely incorporated into the Mongol empire. Nonetheless, Xixia ceased to exist as an independent civilisation.

And although the invasion of Khwarezmia was brutal (even by Mongol standards) it was 'justified' because the Khwarezmids had executed Muslim merchants and shaved and beheaded sacred ambassadors sent by Genghis Khan who only wanted to establish trade relationships.

There are alternative theories that Genghis had set up the whole incident to provide an excuse to attack Khoresmia so as not to leave a powerful enemy on his western front.

Genghis Khan unified formerly warring clans, established and effective peace across the worlds largest empire which encouraged east-west trade and the desimination of ideas. Of the nations who were conquered the Great Khan allowed the native peoples to hold office, to join his armies and to live their lives. He allowed all religions to flourish in his domains and was generally considered generous to those he liked.

I'll give you some of that. He didn't establish peace across the world's largest empire - his son, Ogedei, did. He was fair to conquered peoples (assuming they survived the conquest), and likewise set down fair laws and was respected by his generals.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

First off, thank you, tonguez, for saving me from a lot of typing. Completely in agreement with everything you said, and it was very well stated.

And after they surrendered, Genghis had the royal family executed and Xixia completely incorporated into the Mongol empire. Nonetheless, Xixia ceased to exist as an independent civilisation

Yes they never existed independent again. Of course, many people, especially the Chinese, hail the Mongol's conquerings with the re-unification of China, so whether this was a bad thing is debatable. As for salying of the highest rulers...read Machiavelli, The Prince was written after Genghis's time, but such actions were just in following with what would later become standard procedure for conquering forces (slay anyroyalty that could later lay claim as rightful heir and start a rebellion, but otherwise leave the existing governmental structure unchanged, and let the people live as they had.). There's a certain high profile war going on right now where the invading army neglected to follow this basic principle...

There are alternative theories that Genghis had set up the whole incident to provide an excuse to attack Khoresmia so as not to leave a powerful enemy on his western front.

First off, you mean hypothesis. A theory is something that's been tested many times and is generally accepted as true. Sorry if I sound pedantic, but I really can't stand the common cry of "x is just a theory!" for alot of scientific assertions. As for this hypothesis, it has major hurdles to overcome to be plausible, since trading would have been very beneficial for the Mongols, and because the Mongols were at the time still fighting in China, and it's not a stretch to say Genghis Khan was tactically smart enough to know waging wars on two opposite fronts simultaneously, with both enemies singularly larger than you, was tantamount to suicide. Even if the whole thing was staged, Genghis couldn't have ordered the rulers to kill his ambassadors and merchants. Maybe they could have acted extremely disrespectfully to entice their own demise, but the leaders of Khoresmia still were the ones who chose to murder, and had to know such acts were going to bring consequences. Though, I've seen some sources say they didn't consider the Mongols a threat at all, and were merely doing this as an intimidation tactic. If this is true, it's even worse than the former statement, and they really did bring it on themselves. Finally, it should be noted, that even after such terrible acts, Genghis STILL allowed towns that surrendered peacefully to remain unharmed.

I'll give you some of that. He didn't establish peace across the world's largest empire - his son, Ogedei, did. He was fair to conquered peoples (assuming they survived the conquest), and likewise set down fair laws and was respected by his generals.

While the Silk Road wasn't fully peaceful till after his death, his son Ogedei was largely following the blueprints Genghis had laid out for the immediate future, and I have no doubt that the Silk Road would have also been made the legendarily safe route it was if Genghis Khan had lived long enough.