Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Glossing over the posts between my last reply and current one, because they're more about the "broad-scale" course of ATL history than my specific concerns:
My bad. Upon reflection, I expressed my initial point rather poorly.
First, I should clarify that it wasn't my intention to argue the entirety of Mongol High Culture was intrinsically or irredeemably horrible. Sorry for potentially coming off that way, as I sense I need to dial back on the "Cynicism without context!" from now on.
Rather, my argument is that you could still get specific individual figures and societies within that culture that swing in more extreme directions than the "mean behavior" of the High Culture in aggregate. Naturally, I refer mostly to ATL Modernity, which — as we've discussed at length — is the conga-line of extremes where the High Culture's craziest aspects come flooding out in droves. Again, I don't expect ATL Modernity to match the Western ideological pedigree precisely, so it's probably safe to rule out a Mongol Modernity where off-brand expies of Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and other Western "-isms" transplanted to ATL are all the rage.
However, there will still be stormy ideological competition, large-scale total wars, and enlarged governments to deal with the newfound pressures — all of which give rise to extreme people, movements, and atrocities that'd have given those in previous phases of the Culture's existence pause. That is, unfortunately, how we got some of history's worst despots IOTL.
On the contrary, I'm well aware these guys could be pretty damn demonstrative and no-nonsense.
My understanding is simply that, even among the Major Leagues of Conquerors, Genghis Khan (and his whole dynasty, really) was still exceptionally brutal. Don't recall where I first read them, but I distinctly recall tales of him using people as human shields, pouring molten metal down prisoners' throats, and flinging corpses up into enemy fortresses as a primitive form of biological warfare. All in all, an array of "fun" and "inventive" activities that even Caesar would find rather gruesome.
In which case, the downsides of Mongol High Culture being crushing enemies with Saddam Hussein levels of brutality would make sense to me. Some upsides (as you covered) would be surprising tolerance and openness to exchange with those who accept their overlordship — and if you have any more "specific" (if also impressionistic) ideas as to how that could turn out, I'd be interested in hearing them.
That said, even assuming this doesn't happen...
I'd still maintain that just because a High Culture in aggregate has a certain "profile of qualities" doesn't mean every single society and key figure in its history will perfectly exemplify the overall profile. Ultimately, humans are too varied for that, so it'd be absurd to act as if there won't be people who epitomize certain aspects of the Mongol High Culture more than others — both for better, and for worse.
Some will be more heroic and humane than average, keeping the brutality towards resistance to a minimum and still proving quite humane to the losers, anyway (e.g., Mongol Washington or Lincoln). Others yet will be more merciless and monstrous all-around, being "All take, no give!" and happily genociding everyone else (e.g., Mongol Hitler or Stalin). For obvious reasons, I'm not really worried about the former. The latter, however, I certainly worry about — hence, my reservations about ATL Mongol High Culture producing at least one "Horrific to the last!" Mongol warlord(s) during its own "Stormy Autumn" phase within the circa-2200-to-2500 timeframe.
In summary: You may have a High Culture where values A, B, C, and D are the baseline motifs and conceits that make it "uniquely itself", but still have specific people and factions within that culture at a given time who "cherry-pick" and emphasize value A more while downplaying B, C, and D, if that makes sense. As I've said, I'm not terribly worried about positive outliers who really accentuate the permissive and honorable side. Negative outliers prone to exceedingly brutal and bloodthirsty side, though? Yeah, that does actually worry me.
Hmm... I sense a potential crossover fic here?
Obviously, an ASB scenario where a portal opens between the two settings in the early 23rd century would be a game-changing POD that throws both "cycles"off. Even if not, I doubt macro-history would be much of a priority for leadership on either side, despite the fact a few discerning observers (read: Spengler expies from my Imperium Americana universe) might notice a rhyme and reason that just about no one else does. Very interesting times, indeed!
These things balance out. (As I say so often, about so many things, because it's so consistently true.)
But it's not a given, as I've outlined above. Since much of the Mongols' own steppe culture would in this scenario prevail, the resulting High Culture (of which Genghis Khan would be the 'Charlemagne') could be a curious mix of practical-minded, no-nonsense brutality and remarkaly 'enlightened' attitudes of social tolerance. I could imagine its laws being permissive of many things, but carrying a (swiftly-executed) death penalty for all the really serious things.
My bad. Upon reflection, I expressed my initial point rather poorly.
First, I should clarify that it wasn't my intention to argue the entirety of Mongol High Culture was intrinsically or irredeemably horrible. Sorry for potentially coming off that way, as I sense I need to dial back on the "Cynicism without context!" from now on.
Rather, my argument is that you could still get specific individual figures and societies within that culture that swing in more extreme directions than the "mean behavior" of the High Culture in aggregate. Naturally, I refer mostly to ATL Modernity, which — as we've discussed at length — is the conga-line of extremes where the High Culture's craziest aspects come flooding out in droves. Again, I don't expect ATL Modernity to match the Western ideological pedigree precisely, so it's probably safe to rule out a Mongol Modernity where off-brand expies of Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and other Western "-isms" transplanted to ATL are all the rage.
However, there will still be stormy ideological competition, large-scale total wars, and enlarged governments to deal with the newfound pressures — all of which give rise to extreme people, movements, and atrocities that'd have given those in previous phases of the Culture's existence pause. That is, unfortunately, how we got some of history's worst despots IOTL.
The Mongols were capable of intense brutality, but then again: was Caesar not? Was Alexander not? Was Charlemagne not? Was Napoleon not? Was Chandragupta not? All these successful men, with great military achievements to their name, used the same fundamental approach that Genghis Khan also used. When meeting resistance, they exterminated. When meeting submission, they were gracious and tolerant-- often to the point that they were seen as liberators by those who voluntarily joined them; removing corrupt or overbearing previous rulers.
Alexander he Great and Genghis Khan, in particular, excelled at this strategy. They burned down cities that arose against them, but they also lowered taxes overall, removed corruption, elevated capable men to stations of power, expanded and improved infrastructure, and were genuine proponents of cultural and religious tolerance and co-existence.
On the contrary, I'm well aware these guys could be pretty damn demonstrative and no-nonsense.
My understanding is simply that, even among the Major Leagues of Conquerors, Genghis Khan (and his whole dynasty, really) was still exceptionally brutal. Don't recall where I first read them, but I distinctly recall tales of him using people as human shields, pouring molten metal down prisoners' throats, and flinging corpses up into enemy fortresses as a primitive form of biological warfare. All in all, an array of "fun" and "inventive" activities that even Caesar would find rather gruesome.
In which case, the downsides of Mongol High Culture being crushing enemies with Saddam Hussein levels of brutality would make sense to me. Some upsides (as you covered) would be surprising tolerance and openness to exchange with those who accept their overlordship — and if you have any more "specific" (if also impressionistic) ideas as to how that could turn out, I'd be interested in hearing them.
That said, even assuming this doesn't happen...
Now, if Genghis Khan "goes West" and depopulates Russia, turning his empire into a "Great Mongolia in the shape of OTL Russia", we must admit that the whole thing starts with an act of massive genocide. That might set the tone, as it were. But it's not a given, as I've outlined above.
I'd still maintain that just because a High Culture in aggregate has a certain "profile of qualities" doesn't mean every single society and key figure in its history will perfectly exemplify the overall profile. Ultimately, humans are too varied for that, so it'd be absurd to act as if there won't be people who epitomize certain aspects of the Mongol High Culture more than others — both for better, and for worse.
Some will be more heroic and humane than average, keeping the brutality towards resistance to a minimum and still proving quite humane to the losers, anyway (e.g., Mongol Washington or Lincoln). Others yet will be more merciless and monstrous all-around, being "All take, no give!" and happily genociding everyone else (e.g., Mongol Hitler or Stalin). For obvious reasons, I'm not really worried about the former. The latter, however, I certainly worry about — hence, my reservations about ATL Mongol High Culture producing at least one "Horrific to the last!" Mongol warlord(s) during its own "Stormy Autumn" phase within the circa-2200-to-2500 timeframe.
In summary: You may have a High Culture where values A, B, C, and D are the baseline motifs and conceits that make it "uniquely itself", but still have specific people and factions within that culture at a given time who "cherry-pick" and emphasize value A more while downplaying B, C, and D, if that makes sense. As I've said, I'm not terribly worried about positive outliers who really accentuate the permissive and honorable side. Negative outliers prone to exceedingly brutal and bloodthirsty side, though? Yeah, that does actually worry me.
Assuming that Genghis Khan gets eveything done during his life-time (say, by AD 1225), this suggests that we might expect their equavalent of a 'reformation' somewhere in the twentieth century, and their counterpart to Napoleon about two hundred years from (the ATL's version of) now. Which means that their 'Napoleon' would appear about a century into our Principate. That would surely make for interesting times!
Hmm... I sense a potential crossover fic here?
Obviously, an ASB scenario where a portal opens between the two settings in the early 23rd century would be a game-changing POD that throws both "cycles"off. Even if not, I doubt macro-history would be much of a priority for leadership on either side, despite the fact a few discerning observers (read: Spengler expies from my Imperium Americana universe) might notice a rhyme and reason that just about no one else does. Very interesting times, indeed!