Compare the methods and Motives of the mongol empire and Timurs empire Essay

Compare the methods and Motives of the mongol empire and Timurs empire in central Asia. Were the two empires more similar or mo - Essay Example The empire soon split, and this was actually the trend for a large Empire. An example is the case of the Roman Empire after the death of Caesar. The death of Genghis Khan led to the division of the Empire with the descendants of Genghis Khan fighting against other eligible candidates in retaining the throne. The methods of the Mongol empire under his leadership could be explained as having a high level of â€Å"flexibility and pragmatism characteristics† (Soucek 105). This was exhibited by the way he went about acquiring kingdoms, which later led to the expansion of the Mongol empire. This is done by peaceful surrendering of the territories to the Mongols to avoid attack and ensuring that the leader of a targeted empire maintains his throne and saving the inhabitants from the trauma of massacre. Resistance to the Mongol in the form of military resistance resulted in severe consequence - either extermination or decimation (Dunnell 45). Genghis Khan and his immediate successors were successful with their conquests because of well-made arrangements and planning by means of an organized administrative system that is not matched across kingdoms (Soucek 103). Perhaps, this is largely what historians claim to be a vision to rule the world that is similar to the quest Caesar to unify and rule the world. The charismatic characters displayed by the three generations after Genghis Khan and their legacies is a unique historical phenomenon as suggested by scholars, and it is believed to justify the traits which descents from the house of Genghis Khan retained for centuries to come. The Mongolian interlude is believed to be a traumatic one in the history of Central Asia; the Timurid period can be viewed as its glorious one. The founder of this dynasty Timur was also ruthless in his quest for territorial expansion. Like Khan, he carried out similar massacres and destruction. However, the places affected were outside Central Asia, for instance Iran and the Golden Horde. Timur showed mastery and endurance comparable to Genghis Khan. The Timurs inherited the throne after the death of Genghis descendant in the late fourteenth century. Unlike Khan who had no role model, Timur had to make use of the charismatic traits in the Genghisid descent, which was achieved by marrying a descendant of Genghis. This was because during his time, no nomad king with the objective of an ultimate rule and prestige of Khan felt legitimate without being attached to the Genghisid line. Nevertheless, unlike Khan, he could claim a right to rule in virtue of being an Islamic monarch and reflecting the will of God (Dunnell 78). Timur's military exploits were spectacular. His campaigns went as far as Eastern Europe, which was claimed to have escaped by coincidence (Soucek 151). Like the Mongolians, the Timurs also were conquerors. Places like India, Syria, and Anatolia were attacked. Regions such as Delhi, Istahan, Baghdad, Damascus, Saray, and Izmir revealed the extent of thei r conquest (Soucek 125). Nevertheless, it is believed that the empire founded by Timur was in no way comparable to that of Genghis Khan either in size or in structure. Even his successors lacked the acquisitive instinct of the successor of Genghis Khan. The similarities between the Mongolian and the Timur empires could be attributed to their

Read an article Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Read an article - Essay Example However, a contradiction in this theory came in the form of Hayek, who believes that it is not a problem of lack of private property, rather; the lack of knowledge that presents a challenge to socialism (Hoppe 143). This paper will examine the author of Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem and his line of thought. This is while focusing on what ideas he might offer the audience in terms of the concepts of socialism, and how it might affect them. Hans-Hermann Hoppe chose to discredit Hayek with his theory, saying that it was completely false and ridiculous. In an effort to discredit Hayek and his school of thought, he brings forth arguments to support Mises’s thesis. Mises’s thesis advocates for the presence of private property in land and production factors for there to be proper channels of economic calculation. There being a medium of exchange in the form of money, it would then be possible to calculate and make comparison of the economic situation. Hoppe makes the assumption that Hayek does not have the right arguments to support his thesis about socialism. Hayek purports that socialism and its ultimate flaw is that knowledge about certain circumstances of place and time exist in widely dispersed form, as the personal possession of various individuals (Hoppe 144). Hoppe may have an inclination toward Mises’s school of thought. ... The author, Hoppe, criticizes Hayek by asking a question that would be on the minds of the audience about why clubs, firms, and families exist if his line of thought were to be true. It is Hayek’s belief that a decentralized use of knowledge may lead to the solving of socialism’s ills. In this decentralized use of knowledge, individuals are left to their own devices and can make their decisions (Hoppe 144). To some extent, the above may be true. However, the author tries to explain that when individuals are left to their own decision making abilities, it would be next to impossible to ignore the central plan, as they would not be constrained by the normal things in society. He further claims that if the deciding factor or the solution to socialism’s problems was a decentralized form of thinking, it would be a daunting task to explain why the problems faced by socialism are different from those faced by any other social order. According to Mises and his followers, this line of thought is beside the point. Hoppe points out that it is not the existence of centralized knowledge, or the lack of the use of decentralized knowledge that brings problems to socialism, rather; the absence of property. This ultimately leads to the lack or absence of prices (Hoppe 145). The author claims that Hayek came to realize what Mises had said, but tried to integrate it into his own thesis. This, according to Hoppe, was an elaborate attempt to create a higher and much better theory or line of thinking with regards to the socialism theory, which failed miserably. It is clear from the above that agreeing that socialism’s central or key problem lies in the lack of knowledge. According to the author, private property is the only channel through which information can be transferred.