Then you have issues with religion, not issues with God.

The reason I said that, is, in re-reading your comments, you seemed to imply a religious connotation to what I viewed simply as anthro
pological. So at times it appeared as if we were at cross-purposes.

Perhaps you mean each one of us need to take responsibility for our actions, which are based on our choices. Even Rand said: "It is only moral if it is a choice. That is why she insisted that democracy and its concomitant economic system, capitalism, is the only moral poitico-economic system.
She was never an economist, however. She even admitted that.

Mostly it's because Ov ama hates Putin. He thinks he is a genius and can outsmart him. I guess that was his best shot.

Thor, sometimes it seems you are hung up on religion. Am I right?

That would be "wealth of other cultures." The "religious" interpretation would have come later.

Well, don't let anybody know.

Genghis Khan and other early Mongol rulers were primitives. They associated wealth, and good living with the approbation of the gods. Thus if a culture manifested "wealth" (and here I mean in all its forms), then the gods had smiled at them. He, or his descendants did, after all convert to Islam. That's pretty much proof of that association.
Genghis Khan was a primitive with a raider mentality. That he was able to impose a "peace" of sorts was due to his ability to acquire knowledge and culture of other civilizations. End of story.

I never said he started in intolerance and then changed due to Christian or Muslim influence. You seem to be talking about religious intolerance, which would be foreign to cultures devoid of "religion", but steeped in mythology. I said he depended on existing institutions to administer his wide empire. But it is true that Islam and Christianity softened his and their brutal outlook towards life. Did you get "The Mongol Warlords"?

Just thought of something else. You might want to compare Mongol administration with what occurred after the Germanic invasions/migrations in the 2nd-5th centuries in Europe. They were considerably influenced by Roman law and administration, in some part depending on which area of the empire they settled in. Gaul was more oriented towards Latin forms than Germany, for instance. In any case, the German cultures were certainly less primitive than the Mongol culture.

One other thing before I leave this topic for awhile. If GK's administrations or any other administration was effective or tolerant at all, it was because of his use of existing Islamic or Christian institutions, not any "Mongolian" governance type. They were primitives.

You will need to read "The Secret History of the Moingols---a primary source document.
You are wrong. The Mongols had a raider mentality; With China on their southern border they were well aware of the wealth of other nations. For instance, GK learned military organization from the Chinese so he knew they were there. Unlike Native American tribes, who could not unite even to keep Europians at bay, the factious Mongol tribes were combined under GK, and he set out towards the West where the wealth was. As primitives do, he connected the advanced culture with the religions he found, thus you perceive tolerance, where there was brutality. If there was a softening of the Mongol culture, it was due to influence of those he conquered. It wasn't necessarily land GK wanted; it was other "stuff". I'll continue at a later date.
Interesting you knew nothing of the slave tribute he exacted.
And when I say GK was not interested in land, as such, I meant he was interested in control. Control of the wealth, control of the trade routes, as well.
The Liberal revisionists might even refer to the brutal Mongolian invasion as a "Pax Mongolia", wouldn't you say?

No, he didn't use religion. He accepted enemy combatants into his army, and devoured the rest. He didn't need religion. I believe the book you read is heavily biased. I try to stay away from histories that have been written and published recently as I find them heavily biased in the Leftist/Liberal tradition. Probably this one is influenced by the liberal tendency to refer to primitive cultures as "traditional'.

Well, until he, or whoever, converted to Islam, his religion was a pagan mythology that worshipped I believe some kind of blue wolf. He certainly was aware that the monotheistic religions had wealth, where his religion did not.

As far as Islamic and Christian accounts of Mongol culture, I was referring to primary source documents, not histories.

You may be right. It may have been a son or close descendant of GK. I read it once, but have yet to find that particular primary source document among my books again. Nevertheless, it was because Islam was a religion of strength, that this Mongol leader chose to convert to it. But I'll look for your book in the library. They WERE savages, you know,.
I do have a book I will research in again, maybe this evening: "The Mongol Warlords".
And it does state that as the Mongols absorbed the culture of those they conquered, they became less savage. But I will read more tonight, and get back with you tomorrow. I do find the Mongols an interesting period in history.

What are some of the books you've read about GK? I've read some, including parts of the "Secret History of the Mongols"---a source document. I was going to say "savage" in lieu of "barbarian"---believe me, I know the meaning of barbarian, having studied Medieval European history---from the Latin for unshaven. But I didn't want to excoriate the Mongols too badly. They were savages, though. I have read that GK learned military organization from his southern neighbors. I think the books you read served to white wash an otherwise primitive people, whose motivation for their raids, which turned into conquests, was simply this: I want what you have, and I'm going to take it. I think that the Persians under Tamerlane, the Byzantines, and of course the 'Rus, and others, will not agree with you. Perhaps you have been too influenced by the English romanticists, who wrote about the mighty empires, such as that of Kublai Khan.
Genghis Khan did in fact convert to Islam, believing it to be a religion of strength. Mongols admired strength. I think it was then that his conquests of the West abated somewhat. But I am certainly willing to look into what reference works or source documents you have delved into.
Have you ever seen photos of the original home of the Mongols---Karakorum. Strange how none of the books you've read mentioned the slaves he took in tribute from the "Rus. Did any of them mention Alexander Nevsky?
I have also read both Christian and Islamic accounts of encounters with the Mongols from the 12th and 13th century. You would agree with me, as to their savagery.