Ivan the Terrible's Dance Party
There were those old Russian films Ivan the Terrible (parts I and II). They made him seem sympathetic, and there was indeed a lot of dancing in part II, which was the weaker one.
______
I also read a book last year about Genghis Khan, also, which was by an American scholar who has spent a huge amount of time in Mongolia and other parts of Asia studying the conqueror's history. I forget the title. It might have been "Genghis Kahn and the Making of the Modern World." I completely forget the author's name.
There was supposedly a book found in an old Chinese archive which was about his life, but was written in code except for a brief introduction to each section. The code was apparently broken, and the book tells the story of a man whose career as a warrior began as an attempt keep his small tribe which lived in the verge of extinction safe and not starving to death.
Much of the story told in the Chinese book goes along with oral traditions about him and has a certain credibility because the accounts don't make him out to be a superman. It admits that he killed his brother. It records his fear of dogs. He had a deep love and attachment for his mother (like Norman!) and his first wife, which to a modern person seems like a compliment, but could have been seen as unmanly back then.
According to this author, his victories weren't because of great brutality, but because of the skill his people had at archery and horsemanship. Once he acquired enough horses, his whole army was light cavalry and his soldiers used very long-range bows, allowing them to ride around at high speeds showering the enemy with arrows for as long as it took to win (or escaping quickly if necessary, still doing a great deal of damage with few losses).
People from more technologically advanced cultures who sided with him brought knowledge of siege machinery, primitive explosives and flammable liquids making cities easy targets.
The book's controversial premise is that he was in many ways a modern man at heart, instituting paper money, respecting diplomatic immunity, tolerating all religions, promoting trade between Europe and Asia, etc.
While it was a fascinating book, and may have a lot of truth to it, the author seemed kind of obsessed with Genghis Khan, the glory of the empires in China and India founded by his descendants and the need to always portray him positively.
His friendship with Mongolian scholars and cultural figures who are proud of their past might had lead him to always see story from their side and unconvincingly smooth over some really horrible things as well as obvious flaws in their method of empire-building. It's particularly absurd when he tries to put a positive spin on the Mongols' failed attempt to conquer Japan.
But then, the idea of the Khan as evil for evil's sake and lists of atrocities are all people generally know, so it was interesting to see another point of view.
reply
share