No. It was brutal, involved several war crimes, but I don't think anything in there specifically targeted a race for extermination.
Moreover, you have to be careful with applying a modern legal definition to past atrocities- the Mongols existed in a different time, hundreds of years before "genocide" was even a term. We run into the issue of presentism (judging past actions based on the understanding we have in the present) when we try to apply these terms to events so far back in the past.
Edited 7/16/2015 20:55:59
Was the destruction under the Mongol Empire gencoi: 7/16/2015 20:57:41
They also had religious freedom, meritocracy based governance, very good internal security, revived the Silk Road and Indian Ocean trade, as well as influence positively much of eastern Europe. Imagine a world without Russia.
The Mongols were fair. Why should you let a city live if it refuses to surrender? No reason.
In the end, it was a different time and they did just as much good as bad. Compared to Hitler, genghis khan is a saint.
Was the destruction under the Mongol Empire gencoi: 7/16/2015 21:08:21
@Ben: They didn't demonstrate the intent to exterminate any specific group of people. The Nazis had specifically written about and planned out the extermination of Jews and Slavs. You won't find similar documents from the Mongols.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying the Mongols were good guys. Genocide is just a very specific charge and very tough to prove.
Edited 7/16/2015 21:09:03
Was the destruction under the Mongol Empire gencoi: 7/16/2015 21:08:53
Nope. Neither were Timur's conquests or the conquests of the conquistadors. Genocide isn't just killing a lot of people. It refers to specifically trying to kill an ethnic/religious/racial/national/etc. group.
We're talking about literally the worst crime punishable under any law. It doesn't happen that often.
Also, what's up with Attlee's constant "was X genocide?" threads?
Was the destruction under the Mongol Empire gencoi: 7/16/2015 23:34:11