Many people may question whether a ruler of an empire can be both brutal and enlightened. This debate is especially relevant when it comes to Mongol leader Genghis Khan. Two people who have different views on this topic are Jack Weatherford and Mike Edwards. In Weatherford’s Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, he believes that although the Mongols have a reputation for barbarity, that Genghis Khan was actually an enlightened and compassionate ruler in many ways. In contrast to Weatherford’s views, in Edward’s Genghis Khan, he believes that even though Khan may have had an enlightened side to him, that the barbarity of his conquests out show any good he may have done. Even though Weatherford makes a compelling argument, I would personally have to agree with Edwards that despite his good deeds, his barbaric ways are what really makes him the non-enlightened ruler he was. Genghis Khan was born in northern Mongolia during a time when there was always intertribal warfare. After his father was poisoned by another tribe, forcing him and his family to fend for …show more content…
Edwards believes that even if he did do these good things while he was alive, that the barbaric warfare outweighs them all. Edwards talks about how the Mongols “killed ruthlessly- opposing armies as well as hapless noncombatants- and subjugated millions as they pursued the dream of the empire” (202). The Mongols perused many territories to gain the most land they could and fought until Khan got what he wanted. I think what Edwards is trying to say is that Khan was so obsessed with having all the power he could have that he would stop at nothing to get it. An example of this is when Edwards talks about the Mongols using civilians as a human shield at Samarkand. Khan also created a ten thousand- man personal guard and kept hostages from powerful families because he was afraid the people would