The benefits of the Mongols and their empire outweighs the harms.

I look forward to an exciting debate!Religious Tolerance & FeminismI have lumped these together because they warrant much the same response; that is, neither concept was novel to the Mongolian 'Empire'. One of the biggest problems Westerners have when looking at Eastern history is the tendancy to superimpose our own values and social mechanisms (and those of our European ancestors) on the East. This is a dangerous practice because it creates something of an artificial history that can then be difficult to separate from the origins of an actual history; namely one where the Easterners were already much more spiritually enlightened and progressive than we give them credit for.Religious Tolerance Rebuttal: The Mongols were tolerant of many religions, of this there is no doubt. But this can not be attributed as a benefit to their leadership because this type of view had been in place for centuries (and even millienia, depending on how far back you wish to go) before the Mongols were ever conceived of. The reason for this, is that unlike most Western religions which, were monotheistic in nature (after paganism began to fall apart in the Roman empire), the predominant Eastern religions since the beginnings were always polytheistic, pantheistic or agnostic. Taoism, Buddhism, Shamanism, Zoroastronism, Hinduism and many others thrived in the East, all living peacefully together. Monotheistic religions maintained the status of minorities even after they travelled to the East, and so because no religions explicitly contradicted eachother, but rather complimented eachother, they lived fairly peacefully (with but a few exceptions) together.This was the culture of tolerance the Mongols, and Genghis Khan grew up in, and so it should be no surprise that he simply carried on the tradition. This was in no way a 'benefit' of his power.Feminism Rebuttal: This too is a common misconception among people (especially because many Asian and Middle Eastern countries are viewed as being oppressive towards women in the modern eras) that Eastern women were devalued. It is actually, quite the opposite. Since the beginning, when the Persians conquered most of the land in the East and Asia Minor (now considered the Middle-East) and created the first uniform empire, women begin anjoying greater rights than our European counterparts. There were famous women generals that fought in Eastern armies such as Artemesia, Zhao Pingyang, Empress Wu and Liang Hongyu just to name a few. Egypt in fact, saw the greatest boom in women's rights (some might say, even more progressive than today's Egyptian women) as soon as it was taken over by the East. Women shortly thereafter got the right to participate in politics, to initiate divorce, to own property, and even to become heads of state. Further, we as Westerners have a very biased view against 'prostitution'; geishas, concubines and courtesans. Actually, in the East, these were women of great power. They were extremely well-respected, well-educated and as such had considerable influence over th over the men in their company.So, again, the only things the Mongol's offered women was violent and brutal rape by the millions (0.05 of the world's population is said to be descended from Genghis Khan alone!).TradeThe Silk Road Rebuttal: Mongols valued trade, but so do most other civilizations throughout the entire span of history. The Silk Road was created roughly 1500 years before Ghengis Khan existed, and has been policed by different nations ever since it's origins as the 'Royal Road' of the Perisan Empire. The Mongols were in no way unique by doing this, they simply took over the surrounding area through what even their own historians have deemed as 'unusually barbaric practices'.The time of Ghengis Khan was one of the few times throughout the entire course of its history when the surrounding area was in a constant state of war and thus, the Silk Road was unusable. By conquering its parameter, and reopening the trade routes to Europe in this era, the Bubonic Plague was carried with it, which subsequently decimated populations throughout Europe, and across Central and Eastern Asia.The Renaissance Rebuttal: Your argument about assiting the Renaissance in Europe is extremely flawed. There is the obvious chronological problem with this (the Renaissance happened almost 3 centuries after the Mongols). Further however, the Renaissance was not a result of gunpowder at all, nor any other Eastern products for that matter. The Renaissance was directly correlated with the sack of the Byzantine capitol, which circulated thousands of ancient philisophical works from ancient Roman and Greek authors.The Morality ArgumentGenghis Khan's Massacres: Besides bringing no new innovation to the people under his reign, there is one large factor we should consider: the moral one. Certainly, it is easy to speak of all Hitler's good luck, achievements and benefits brought to the Germans under the Third Reich, it would be extremely irresponsible to completely ignore the mass extermination that occured under his command. The same holds true of Genghis Khan and his horde of ravenous Mongolian barbarians. He and his men alone were responsible for the top three massacres in human history with the death tolls rising to over a whopping 40 million slaughtered (this doesn't even include the rapes, forced slavery or plague deaths brought) under his rule alone. Not only did he slaughter the people, but is was often his custom to raze entire cities to the ground. Baghdad, in particular, replaced Athens and Alexandria as the cultural hub of the world where scientists, philosphers and scholars would come together to form ideas. Who knows what geat works were lost in his cruel and brutal rampage of the city?The Khan's Influence on Mao Zedong: As if his death toll weren't high enough. When he conquered Asia, he left it devoid of the rise of what had become of the 'wholesome' and 'life-valuing' Muslims. In it's place he left the legacy of extermination and violence. Though Genghis Khan may have considered himself enlightened, this was by no means a hand by which he ruled. His bloodthirsty attitude carried on for centuries and paved the way for tyrant after tyrant; China was not to see another peaceful ruler after his influence had set in. Finally, in walks Mao Zedong, the path paved with the blood of civilians. He was influenced by Genghis Khan, stating "The great man, Genghis Khan, only knew how to shoot eagles with an arrow..." believing that his acheivments were easily surpassable by Mao's own. So began the massacre of another 40 million people in true Mongolian style.The Khan's Influence on The Holocaust: We finally come to the largest mass extermination in all of history: the Holocaust. We know for a fact that Genghis Khan and his style of conquest directly influenced Hitler's execution of affairs in the Third Reich, but it was probably also a contributing factor in the Holocaust as can be gathered by the evidence. Upon raiding Hitler's book stash, several books about Genghis Khan and his philosophies, military style, etc. turned up and Hitler mentioned him as a role model in several of his most famous speeches. It's well understood that Hitler read many works on this subject, and assuredly got ideas on military conduct and conquest from them.What is also interesting, is that one of his closest members of staff, Heinrich Himmler, who was also payed a large role in overseeing concentration camps and designing 'The Final Solution' gave very intimate details upon his capture. One of these details was his favorite book that influenced him greatly, one about Genghis Khan. A book he personally reconmmended and gave a copy of to Hitler. Genghis Khan's philosphy of 'life being of very little value when taking action as a leader' was particularly intriguing to the execution of the Third Reich's initiatives. And so followed the massacre of 66 million people.ConclusionGenghis Khan's death toll, as we can see, is well over 140 MILLION people, especially if we could how many died from the Black Death he was responsible for spreading. He was directly responsible and heavily influential in the top 3 mass exterminations throughout all of human history, as well as the senseless destruction of one of the intellectual capitols of the world. Was all this really worth maintaining the status quo in the East? I'd say not.