Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Genghis Gal - by KarenC

Playing with the enemy’s heads

November 9th 2006 13:00
(Warning before you proceed: Contains really gross historical details)

Polo began in Central Asia circa 500 BC, according to many sources. You know the game: a few horses, some sticks, some Englishmen and a ball. Right? Well, not necessarily. The Mongolians took this great game to a new level, supposedly playing with the heads of their vanquished enemies as they rode on the backs of their strong, stout horses. Although this version of history has its doubters, I am not one of them. Those crazy Mongol conquerors – pretty much anything went with those guys. And why not? They ruled the world.


One of the great tactics of the conquering hordes of Genghis Khan was, quite simply, fear. They used this unbelievably effectively. They have the reputation – of which I am sure you are aware – of incredible cruelty, brutality and ferociousness. In most cases it is just that: a reputation. They punished with cruelty, brutality and ferociousness, but if you learned the bloody lesson you were spared. Yet it was this reputation that they relied on to keep them powerful and to ensure their momentum was maintained as they rolled relentlessly through Central Asia and on into Eastern Europe.

There are horrific stories of towns that refused to surrender being laid waste, every man, woman and child put to the sword. And before they killed every last inhabitant, the Mongol conquerors would ensure that the person in charge of that town, the person directly responsible for refusing to surrender to their inevitable onslaught, died a particularly nasty death. A story that has stayed with me for years is the punishment inflicted on the leader of a town who not only refused to surrender but demanded that the Mongols paid him gold in order to hand over his town. When the Mongols eventually defeated his city they poured molten gold down his throat as a symbolic punishment. (Note to any historians reading this post: I may have embellished this story over the years through pure horror, I’m no longer entirely sure.)


Brutal? Certainly. But what it achieved was the effective surrender of every single town they came across for the few months. Who would want that type of torture and inevitable death inflicted on them? And for what? Most of the people they were overrunning had no clear leaders anyway, the regions often being in a state of conflict as it was, or at the mercy of warring tribes. And when the Mongols conquered peacefully, they incorporated these conquered people into their empire and their realm and they were able to go about life pretty much as it was before the onslaught of the Eastern horsemen. It’s really that simple.

So why am I telling you this detail? Well, I’m kind of hiding under the pretext of history here, so really it’s only to say that I believe strongly that the Mongols did take polo to an additional level and that they did play with the heads of the defeated. Their tactic was fear and their end game was the control of everything that stood in their path. They may only have played 'enemy head polo' once, and it may only have been for a minute, but the effect of this one game was so strong that it lives on 600 odd years later. Imagine what the effect was in the next town they visited …

Would you mess with that?
83
Vote
   


I’ve recently done a post about travelling through time and not only did it raise some amazing time travel scenarios, it also raised some really interesting questions. (Shameless plug 1: http://www.swansgal.com/if-you-could-time-travel-where-would-you-go-and-what-would-you-do/#comments) It also meant I had to put a new blog up, since I decided the Sydney Swans and esoteric History posts weren't really compatible.

The two posts that I found really fascinating in their implications were:

Saving Jesus from the cross (Thanks to Luke)

and

If you change something, does something worse take its place? Or does it all change for the better? (Thanks to DuskDevi)

When I conceived of my time travel post I thought of the many possibilities of changing history, but didn’t really focus on them as I wanted to keep it a little more ‘light fantastical’. I mean, how cool is time travel? I wanted people’s imaginations to take them on whatever journey they desired, to whatever time they wanted to visit. But the idea that you could make a major historical change did come into the equation, as did the question about whether changing one event could actually make life better or worse. Now, combine all of this and you go beyond time travel for time travel’s sake.

You get to change the course of history.

When Luke decided to save Jesus, the first thing I did was imagine a world without Catholicism. My siblings and I spent our entire primary and secondary education being schooled by nuns and priests. My entire educational background would have been wiped out by this one choice. Not to mention that, with millions of Christians around the world, their whole belief system would be null and void. It would never have existed in the first place. Or would it? Was it more than his death on the cross that made Christianity. At the very least, Christianity, its icons and its symbolism, would look vastly different.

With DuskDevi’s response on both a global and personal scale, I wondered what it would be like to have the two people I have loved who have taken their own lives still in my life. Could I have saved them? Would it be better to still have them around? Would that one intervention have turned their lives around or would it have prolonged their suffering?

So taking into account the incredible social, religious and personal impacts changing history would bring about, what would I change?

My first impulse was to stop Hitler. But going beyond the simple question of what would I change, I had to ask myself how I would change this event? And what do I imagine the consequences will be? The first question was easy: I’d prevent him being born, most likely by preventing his parents from meeting in the first place. Once he was born, the implications of taking out another human being were too much for me, so prevention was my only solution.

But by preventing Hitler, am I paving the way for a far worse evil to take power? Or am I opening the way for a more enlightened and less brutal regime to take power? I believe that the state of the world at that stage was the deciding factor and by taking Hitler out, I would most likely be making a space for another psychopath to fill. Depressing? Pessimistic? Definitely. But I also think it’s quite realistic.

Would I still do it? Yes. I’d take the chance. "Most likely" and "definitely" are worlds apart in their implications.

This is a much more difficult question than simply time travelling for the heck of it, which is just plain fun. I found this to be quite a confronting concept and one that, for me, even though I made the call in the end, has no simple answer.
113
Vote
   


KarenC's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by KarenC
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]