
Why Genghis Khan’s tomb can’t be found - lunaru
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170717-why-genghis-khans-tomb-cant-be-found
======
beloch
Strongest possible recommendation: Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode -
"Wrath of the Khans"

[http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-
of-t...](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-the-khans-
series/)

It's sobering to think how utterly helpless Europe was against the Mongols. It
really was dumb luck that prevented the Khans from driving all the way to the
Western shores of Spain.

~~~
randomstudent
> from driving all the way to the Western shores of Spain.

I don't think it was luck. It was probably the lack of cars ;)

~~~
Kpourdeilami
Judging by the amount of lands of that Mongols conquered, lack of cars
wouldn't have stopped them from conquering Europe. Mongol empire at its peak
spanned over 24 million square kilometres of land while To put that into
perspective, the Roman Empire at its peak only spanned over 5 million square
kilometres of land

~~~
NoCoastCoder
Pretty sure he was making a joke about the use of the term driving.

------
Boothroid
Contrast the Mongolians celebration of their imperial glory with western guilt
about imperialism. Why is one OK and the other not? Is it just a matter of
timescale or perspective? It makes me think about how the Georgians celebrate
Stalin, whilst everyone else seems to consider him a butcher.

~~~
astine
I've never personally felt guilty for imperialism, but if I were to visit my
brother I would meet a number of native Americans who's ancestors were beat
down by people of the same race as my ancestors. Those natives still suffer
the consequences of that. The Mongols are now more at the mercy of the Chinese
rather than visa-versa. It's less crass for them to reminisce about there
glory days and triumphs against a people who now dominate them, than it would
be for white men in my country to reminisce about conquering a people whom
they still dominate.

That said, there are still people pissed about the Mongol conquest. Genghis
Khan is still hated in China, and central Asia and especially the middle east.

~~~
k_sze
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Genghis Khan is hated in China. As
far as I know, he is considered one of the national heroes, I guess partly
because China controls Inner Mongolia.

For instance, in popular culture, such as Jinyong's Legend of the Condor
Heroes, Genghis Khan is a secondary character, depicted as a smart leader who
was shaped by the treachery of his own sworn brother and by the oppression of
the Jurchen Jin dynasty. The reader is lead to empathize with Genghis Khan,
through the eyes of Guojing, the patriotic Sung protagonist, despite the
resentment that exists between him and Genghis Khan, the Mongolian leader who
has decided to turn on their Sung dynasty allies.

I know Jinyong's work is fiction with a historical background, but I believe
his work is a good indication of Chinese sentiments towards historical events
and figures.

~~~
cba4321
As a Chinese I don't think he is national hero at all, and most people I know
don't regard him as hero, I'm not sure where did you get that idea. He was a
conqueror for sure.

Chinese suffered as much as other conquered lands, to say to least. The Yuan
dynasty lasted less than a century, one of the shortest period in the history.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Mixed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Mixed)

Even in the fiction `Jingyong`'s book, I wouldn't say the author had a bias
favor Khan, I guess smart readers could read it from the book. The Khan would
massacre every one if the be-seiged refuse to surrender, and they usually
would drive herds of surrendered to the gate. Not to mention in the book the
Kan is Kublai instead, and he is noway the secondary character.

~~~
k_sze
"Not to mention in the book the Kan is Kublai instead"

That's in the sequel, The _Return_ of the Condor Heroes, which depicts events
_after_ the death of Genghis Khan.

And since you mention Kublai, Genghis Khan only started the conquest of China.
He only managed to conquer West Xia before his death. The rest of the conquest
of China was done by his descendants, and so I believe most of the atrocities
towards the Chinese occurred then.

------
apapli
The photo in this article inspired me to do a google image search on mongolia.
Never did I realise how much beauty is over there. For some reason I just
gathered Mongolia consisted of either just desert, snow, or desert and snow.
Just beautiful, perhaps one day I will make it there.

~~~
josu
There is a great way to make it to Mongolia: by train. You can take the Trans-
Siberian Railway [0] and connect with the Trans-Mongolian Line [1]. These are
relatively slow trains, it takes about a week to go from Moskow to
Ulaanbaatar. I haven't done it myself, but it's definitively on my bucket
list.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Siberian_Railway#Trans-Mongolian_line)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Siberian_Railway#Trans-M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Siberian_Railway#Trans-Mongolian_line)

------
andy_ppp
This wikipedia entry on Mongolian Military Tactics is well worth a read:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_or...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization)

------
fallingfrog
I don't like the reverential tone here; Ghengis Khan is one of the top
contenders for the title of Worst Human Being in History, if the criteria are
body count and suffering inflicted. We have a tendency to worship power and
dominance even today, but there is no virtue in power for the sake of power.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shihuang, and many other warlords, generals,
emperors, ... Was Genghis Khan appreciably worse than these guys? Or is the
way history works amoral?

~~~
fallingfrog
"Or is the way history works amoral?"

This question suggests some confusion on your part in terms of the difference
between history and ethics, as topics of study.

The _historical_ evidence shows that Ghengis Khan was responsible for a vast
number of deaths - horrible deaths, and these are well documented. That's what
history can talk about - the facts and the context.

As for the _moral_ question of whether or not mass murder is morally
acceptable, well, I invite you to do your own research but the consensus- and
my own opinion- is that no, it is not.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It is "history", but it doesn't seem to too negatively affect our view of him.
In fact, these atrocities sort of get drowned out in the noise of human
history's numbers almost continual atrocities. We all know Genghis Khan killed
lots of people, we all know what Caesar, Alexander did also. We know about the
genocides that occurred as many cultures (often our own) displaced other
cultures (many completely obliterated). Heck, that is even before we look at
things like colonialism. Humans have a history of simply being barbarians, it
is hard to judge morally more than a few hundred years in the past.

~~~
fallingfrog
And of course there are atrocities going on right now, and the future probably
holds atrocities just as bad or worse. That's true enough. I don't react to
the Mongol atrocities with anger or a desire for revenge, just a terrible
sadness that this is what we've done to each other, and a hope (that may be
naive) that we can learn not to do it again. I don't know what else to tell
you- again, if you want to study ethics I'm probably not the best teacher but
I do think that not glorifying violence is a good start.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
You don't have to glorify violence to remember someone's achievements. So
George washington killed Indians and owned slaves. Ya, that's bad of course,
but he still helped found the USA, fought the British, and was a decent first
president. History is just nuanced.

~~~
mcguire
George Washington was a great first president. He would probably have been a
crappy first king, though.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That he didn't want to be king was what made him great.

------
theklub
If you are interested in this check out the Expedition Unknown episode on
Genghis Khan's tomb. They basically know where it is but aren't allowed to
uncover it.

------
hobarrera
I'm completely amazed (and a bit disgusted) at how they don't want the tomb to
be found "out of respect".

The guy was responsible for the eradication of many civilizations, and a
ridiculous amount of plundering, death, and destruction. How can you act "out
of respect" to that?

------
acdjuiamadfn
He was a plunderer, I see no need to lionize and romanticize him.

~~~
Lokran
What he was was a military man of his time and place, much like Alexander the
Great, George Washington, Belisarius, Winston Churchill or Douglas MacArthur.

~~~
hobarrera
Alexander the Great is far from being idolized the way Genghis Khan is being
idolized in this article.

As for the rest of that list, I don't recall any of them having been
responsible for massacring and plundering almost an entire continent. And non
of them (except Washington in the US) are held at high esteem at all.

