Tien Chi! Sigh . . .

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Jasper:
I don't even think that turmoil scales make sense for the "Barbarians". The lands the Mongols conquered were safer and more orderly after their conquest. Their military was more orderly than every military that preceeded them, with the _possible_ exception of the Romans.

While it is true that following the rise of GK Mongol armies achieved a level of organization rarely seen before, their social life remained somewhat chaotic and riddled by clanic feuds and vendettas. It is also true that the Mongols favored religious tolerance and eased communication and trade throughout their empire, eg it was more easy to journey between Persia and China after the conquest, but saying that China or Persia themselves were safer and more orderly than before is a bit of a stretch.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Actually the Barbarian Kings are not primarily inspired by mongols, but the Xiongnu that overtook the Jin dynasty in the fourth century. Much of the bureaucracy of the Han and Jin dynasties were lost. To the Chinese barbarian invasions were probably always experienced as chaotic and unorderly events.

Ah. Good point, and I'm not really sure why Mongols sprung to mind first. Probably because as Keir suggests I was drooling over them. :-)

An army with an incentive to pillage would definitely add variety, so it sounds good to me!

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
The Barbarian Kingdom is Hsuing-nu/Xiongnu not Huns Mortifier as we don't actually know who the Huns were before they showed up in the west.

The vast majority of historians who specialize on this topic still think the Hsiung-Nu and Huns were actually the same people.