I guess the Mongols needed a cheerleader?

While I guess it is a decent account of the Mongol empire, and and excellent account of 18th and 19th century European prejudice, the book felt like a cheering section for the Mongol empire. All of their motivations were just for the betterment of mankind and they were forced into all conflicts through no fault of their own. It does accurately recognize contributions made by the empire as well as those innovations which are still felt in the modern day. But it would be as if saying the Roman empire only did good things and for the betterment of civilization. While the Roman empire did do lots of good things and some of their legacy is still being felt to this day, it wasn't all good. I feel the presentation of the Mongol empire as completely egalitarian
and mostly altruistic is unbalanced.

110 people found this helpful

Golden Horde/Platinum Listen

Universal free education. Widespread literacy. Secular government. Freedom of religion. Ambassadors from other countries. Translators and interpreters. Diplomatic immunity. A consumer-driven economy. Free trade agreements. Huge technological advances in communications. Paper money based on precious metals and gem reserves. Pensions for military veterans, and lifelong benefits for survivors of those killed in action. Support for scholars. Doctors and lawyers. Laws that applied equally to the rulers as well as the ruled. A Supreme Court. Meticulous record keeping, using complex mathematics and calculators. Multiculturalism. An empire bigger than North and Central America, combined.

The Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan and his grandson, Kubla Khan - and lesser known Great Khans - was astonishingly advanced, especially in contrast to Europe, which at the time, was mired in futile attempts - The Crusades - to 'free' the Holy Lands from Muslims.

I knew that Genghis Khan was an innovative military leader who both invented and eschewed conventional warfare. Genghis Khan created the "decimal" system of soldiers of 10 soldiers to a 'squad', which is still used in modern military. A 'company' was 10 squads; a battalion was 10 'companies' . . . and so on. The term "decimal" is author Jack Weatherford's term; the other terms are mine, analogizing to modern military organizational structure. At the same time, Genghis Khan used innovative military weapons - including gun powder - and improved on existing weapons. His tactics - like waging war on multiple fronts, feinting defeat, and skilled infiltrators - are common today, but unique 900 years ago. Psychological warfare was a key part of Genghis Khan's military success - he encouraged stories of Mongol brutality and ruthlessness to encourage surrender.

Until I listened to Weatherford's "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (2004), I had no idea who Genghis Khan was, beyond his military skill. I spent a good part of the book wondering why, with advanced courses in European, Chinese and Russian history, I had essentially missed a crucial empire. In the Afterward, I found out: I am too old.

During China's Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) a Chinese/Mongolian version of "The Secret History of the Mongols" (~1240, author unknown) was used to teach Chinese scholars the Mongolian language. It gradually stopped being used, and by the 19th century, there were very few copies. The first definitive English translation was Harvard-Yenching Institute's translation (Francis Woodman Cleaves, 1982). Urgunge Onon's 2001 translation is much more readable. Both are scholarly, often cited works. From 1924 to 1990, the Soviet Union controlled Mongolia and did its best to eradicate evidence of other civilizations, and kept the rest of the world from the country. Exactly who Genghis Khan was, how the Mongol Empire started, and how it thrived was hidden for almost 700 years.

Weatherford's "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" opened a new civilization and a new perspective for me. Definitely worth the listen.

[If this review helped please press YES. Thanks!]

593 people found this helpful

Brilliant, insightful, intriguing.

What a comprehensive and fascinating detailed history of the great Khans. Weatherford's mastery as a researcher is on full display and is truly up to the task of investigating and sharing the incredible evidence he witnessed being uncovered. The performance is also brilliant. Just to hear the reader pronounce so many names which are difficult to pronounce and read in English with so much confidence, clarity, precision and consistency is worth the price of admission alone. To me this book is a high water mark for its combination of content, performance and new information. Its an instant classic highly recommended. Flawless.

199 people found this helpful

Fantastic

Western histories tend to avoid this bit - this book fixes that big time. It is a history, but with about as much characterization as is possible. It is filled with details and I learned a lot and enjoyed every minute. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in history. The story is filled with action and intrigue, technology and religion, war and even a little peace. It is more than just the novelty that makes this a wonderful listen, it is the story and the characters.

202 people found this helpful

Chills

I listen to audiobooks commuting to and from work and until Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World never had listened to one that actually kept me in the car for longer than necessary. I'd be idling for extended time while it got later and later listening to this incredible work.

The narration is great and the story is spellbinding. I bought the book on a whim and have no regrets.

The first half is much better than the second half, but I enjoyed the story immensely from start to finish and highly recommend.

123 people found this helpful

Nobel Savage

This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more?

The author of this book cannot be called a scholar of repute. This book is littered with the attitude that the Mongols did nothing wrong and were out to save the world but those dastardly white people ruined it for us all. The book is sourced from the Mongol Secret History which is a dubious at best source with a clear cultural and political bias. This book read's like a love letter from a fan not a honest piece of scholarly work. Yes Genghis Khan is one of the greats in human history but no he was not the almost angelic being of providence the author makes him out to be. If you are interested in a more fair and balanced approach to the Mongols I recommend Dan Carlin's podcast Hardcore History: Wrath of the Kahns.

239 people found this helpful

OK, but misleading

This is not a biography of Gengis Khan like the title implies. It spends a lot of time about his childhood (irrelevant to the flow of the book) then speeds very fast through the rest of his life. It is an attempt to give the history of the Mongolian people, however it is more like looking out the window of your car as you speed down the interstate.

Additionally, the narrator's voice works well, but he regularly mispronounces simple words. The story is so-so and the narrator's voice shines far above the quality of the book.

If you're looking for a book about Gengis Khan, look elsewhere, this isn't it.

70 people found this helpful

An interesting insight, but outrageous analysis

Initially, I enjoyed the narration of the life of Genghis Khan, which appeared factual, although not well documented, relying on just a handful of references and sources. It confirmed my preconceived opinion of Genghis Khan, and particularly of his immediate descendents as a savage horde. The author states that they massacres over 35 million people, destroyed agriculture, irrigation, and cities, burned libraries and looted all civilisations in their path, with the sole purpose of conquest and plunder. Ingenious conquerors they certailny were, but certainly nothing more.

The author's later attempts later to potray the Mongols in a favourable light appeared to me as laughable drivel. His claims that they were at the root of the renaissance stretch the limits of logic to the breaking point. He discounted all the historic accounts of academicians and scholars (Voltaire was a "revisionist" historian), giving more credence to the so-called "praise" of Genghis Khan, in The Canterbury Tales, a witty farce by all standards.

The structure of the book, particulary toward the end, left me puzzled. A full hour of epilogue and after-word that produced nothing but repetition of incidents in the main narrative, in a series of cheap clichés.

Maybe I was disappointed because I had read the book immediately after some great histories by Churchill and Roberts, and was expecting an intelligent and objective treatment of the Mongol era.That I did not get. I could not wait to finish the book, particularly the last thirty minutes or so, so I could throw it away.

135 people found this helpful

A passionate, eye-opening chunk of history

The writer, Weatherford, is not what you'd call a great prose stylist, but the story he tells is stunning, and he did all the leg-work. His heart is in it. If you want to know how the modern world was born, listen to this.

Davis' narration is thrilling. Loved it all.

87 people found this helpful

MYTHS & FLIGHTS OF FANCY as REVISIONIST HISTORY!

I barely started the book before being alerted to the fact that the author makes exaggerated claims that are not facts and, in the print version, provides little by way of documentation. Then, since audible makes it impossible to search reader reviews or to bin them by ratings, I turned to some of the one- and two-star reviews on amazon and goodreads by people who already know Mongol culture and history. (I did find one good one here by Mamoun on 11/23/11.) Turns out Weatherford is not a historian but a cultural anthropologist who, as a scholar, apparently committed the sin of losing objectivity and identifying with the culture that he is "studying." Since I bought this to learn history and cannot easily separate the wheat from the chaff, I choose not to fill my head with Weatherford's imaginative notions. I do know enough to recognize that the Mongols are not responsible for the European Renaissance. I'm turning this book back in for a refund.

According to reviewers, this is a repeat of what was done earlier in his "Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World." (Indian here refers to all the native peoples of South, Central, and North America.) No doubt, they are insufficiently credited in areas of agriculture (potatoes, maize,...) and herbal medicines, and, gosh knows, they have been exploited mercilessly by their conquerers. However, given its drafters and their backgrounds, I find it difficult to believe that the "writing of the United States Constitution" owes much to Indian polity or heritage.

205 people found this helpful