Were the mongols barbarians? meaning were they cruel and cold blooded?

Answer 1

First of all, it depends on who's side you were on, the receiving end or the one delivering the wicked blows. And secondly, those who were not 'cruel' or 'cold-blooded' were the ones most likely to be defeated....whether you're dropping a nuclear bomb on women and children or striking them with steel blades... So, in a sense, warfare is barbaric by nature and those who try to moralize it will most likely be defeated.

Answer 2

Barbarian is a word whose origins are ancient Greek. It first meant stammerer or somebody who could not speak Greek. Then the Romans adopted it for the use as a foreigner. Certainly both the Romans and Greeks could use it as a derogatory expression, but it did not necessarily indicate somebody was a cruel person or was from an vicious race or tribe. We can leave that to the 14th Century English who took the word and put that interpretation into it.

Thus, were the Mongols Barbarians from your standpoint? They were foreigners and they could not speak ancient Greek or Latin. To this extent, they were barbarians foremost. As to their cruelty, they were known and respected by the armies of the ancient world as fighters. I doubt their cruelty was any worse than that of the Romans, Thracians, Gauls, or Swabii, or Seldjuk Turks, etc.
Regards

Answer 3

Well in their first few merry romps through Poland if the cities didn't surrender instantly the entire place was put to the sword and razed. Even if the city did surrender, they would generally kill, rape and pillage for a bit anyway, just for the hell of it. They didn't often stay long enough to do serious damage though, once they had re-stocked and had a bit of fun they all mounted up and headed onwards. This was part of their primary tactic, based on their great mobility (they were all mounted on horseback. And i mean all.). They would try to sweep over the towns defences in one mass breakneck charge. If the town was too strong, they would flow around it and continue on. If it was weak and unprepared they would win and maybe stay a few days, but would move onwards before word of their appearance could spread. They were brilliant horsemen, but made poor infantry, and if word of their presence spread ahead of them then they would meet better prepared towns that could withstand their mass charge tactics. Because of this they tended to live "hard and fast", and managed to be quite intensive in their looting, pillaging, etc. Yes they could be cruel and cold blooded; one of Attila's relatives rebelled against him and was defeated. Attilla had promised not to spill a drop of his blood. So he had him rolled up in a carpet and kicked to death. With that and the general death, destruction and pain any large army can cause I suppose they could be called barbarian, although the Romans were often not much better,

Answer 4

the mongols were a nomadic war tribe ,yes, but the term barbarian is a word derived from a latin word meaning wild outlanders, in general. they were not as cruel aqnd cold blooded as people romanticize them to be, but tey often used raidig war parties to conquer and overcome rivals.

Answer 5

they were a very organized army with great tacticians