The greatest conqueror the world has ever known. Genghis Khan's Mongol empire was by far the biggest and strongest in human history.
This is a BBC documentary.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

Thanks for posting this ... indeed!

Respect!

The documentary is very good thanks for sharing.

It is actually not a fact that the Mongol Empire was the strongest and biggest so that information is incorrect.
Secondly, you need to note that the Mongol Empire was NOT Muslim or was not run by Muslims (desoite the name 'Khan' appearing in it).
The Mongols were infact extremely violent and had no rules of war.
I admit they were strong at one point in time though.

Mongol Empire was next only to the British Empire. Mongol wasnt muslim at the start but became muslims soon after Baghdad was destroyed.

They were violent and extremely crazy but if you did what they said they was nice people, if you messed them around then you was killed.

Bottom line is that they used to make mountains of skulls of thier victims then in few decades the same people made minerats of mosques after they see the true religion of islam.

Today Tartar muslims and muslims of Ukraine are orginated from Mongols.

Abadeel must be getting confused between the "largest continous empire in history" (which is without a shadow of a doubt the mongol empire) and the "largest empire in history" (which is the British empire). One word can make quite a difference...

The mongol empire of Timur of the late 14th century and early 15th century was entirely Islamic and ruled a dominion spanning from eastern Turkey to western China. Timur was descended from Genghis Khan himself, and it is claimed that Babur was descended from Timur from one side and Turks from the other so he may also be of Genghis Khan's proginy.

One of the major downfalls of the Mongol empire was the fact that after Genghis died it split into several fiefdoms under the rule of his sons and from then on instead of the eldest son gaining power the other male siblings would too resulting in a power vaccum and infighting between the mongols. So as time progressed it became more and more divided.

Actually Ababeel is lazy, guys I just copied the description from Youtube video for this documentary. Will be careful next time.

So did the mughals. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MUGHAL/ORIGIN.HTM

As long as Mongols were non-Muslim they could not take Delhi. Massive Mongol invasions were defeated by forces of Delhi Sultanate in several attempts spanning more than hundred, almost two hundred years. Although they did raid and ravage today's Pakistan especially Punjab, and ofcourse Afghanistan, central asia, Iran, Iraq, and vast other areas. The Sultanate's armies fought Mongol armies on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. Sultan Khilji converted thousands of captured Mongol POWs to Islam, who were settled near Delhi in an area called Mughalpura. Once most central asian Mongols had become Muslims, like Timur or Babur era, it becomes different dynamic and interest due to Islam. The same level of resistance and unity would not be there. Babur was actually invited by some unhappy local lords, even by a Hindu, to take over from Ibrahim Lodi.

Also the Mumluks defeated the Mongols also when the Mongols tried to push into modern day Egypt.

I knew about Mongol defeat near border of Egypt, but only recently discovered about their Indian campaigns. Some were massive attempts, plus numerous smaller raids.

Yes why doesn't anyone make a documentary on that?

The Muslim Mamlukes defeated the Army Ghenghis Khan had built so decievesly in the battle of Ain Jaloot that for 300 miles the Mamlukes persued and killed every last Mongol soldier they found as a aftermath of the battle.

This epic Battle where the Mongol Empire was stopped occurred at the same biblical spot of "Ain Jalut" or "Goliath's Well" - where the Prophet David (as) killed Goliath.

Yeah the Mumluks defeated the Mongols not once but on many occasions, its very amazing how the the invincible Mongols was defeated when they reached Egypt at the hands of the Mumluks. I think the reason was because the Mumluks was a very disciplined, professional and master tactician type of army.

Mumluks was good army I think they throw Mongols all the way back out from Syria and gave the Crusaders a good whupping too.

Sometimes you think what would have happened if Saladin was around when the Mongols came to Syria its was only 80 years difference that would be a massive battle.

the only"mongol" i knew who called himself muslim was timurlane and he wasn't a mongol at all.

to be frank, mongols turned to tibetan buddhism after their conquest of tibet. even today most of the real "mongolians" are buddhists.
though a agree some mongols turned to islam and took the name khan with them to islam.

Irrespective of religion ....

Respect to the Great Khan!

Mongols spread far and wide in the largest land empire, over more than century. So obviously we are not talking of only mongols from mongolia but their decendants as well, in central asia and other parts who became Muslims. Such as central asian turko-mongols. Thats probably babur's best description. Mughal is a direct translation of Mongol. They mean the same thing.

Some of the Mongolian armies that invaded subcontinent during Delhi Sultanate numbered in range from tens of thousands to upto 150,000 from different sources. Below is an abstract from an analysis from an American student, trying to explain off the Mongol defeats, though in the end he had to admit superiority of Delhi Sultanate armies:-

http://www.mongolianculture.com/MONGOL-ARMIES.htm
"Force applied by the Mongols was insufficient to cow the Delhi Sultanate. The sources claim invasions by hundreds of thousands of Mongols, numbers approximating (and probably based on) the size of the entire cavalry armies of the Mongol realms of Central Asia or the Middle East: about 150,000 men. A count of the Mongol commanders named in the sources as participating in the various invasions might give a better indication of the numbers involves, as these commanders probably led tumens, units nominally of 10,000 men. The small numbers of named commanders mentioned in J. L. Mehta’s work, and the fact that most of these were only generals, not the rulers of the adjacent Mongol realms, seems to suggest that the attacks involved at most a few tens of thousands.
The climatic constraint on sustained operations explains the Mongols’ failure to consolidate their occasional gains in India: Lahore, for instance was repeatedly taken and then abandoned. The hypothesis of small Mongol forces would account for their frequent defeats by the Delhi armies. The 30,000-man cavalry army of Balban (reg. 1266-86) would have been as large as, or larger than, most of the invading Mongol contingents. And finally, the Delhi cavalry was probably better mounted than the Mongols, probably better armed, and possibly better trained. The few horses to survive the climate of Delhi had to be carefully tended and well fed, and consequently could grow larger than the Mongols’ steppe-grazed ponies. And the cream of the Delhi army were slave-soldiers, whom we know from other cases (the mamluks of the Abbasids and of Egypt) could be trained to extraordinary skills with arms. "

The most impressive quality Ghengis Khan had was his appreciation of skill and art. After conquering remote lands he would send all the caught skilled artisans to Mongolia so that they would benefit his people. A truly astonishing and insightful decision for a warrior to make for that time. Just shows his genious and why he was such a spectacular uccess.

You have not read your history then, ever heard of the "Mughal dynasty" ? They were not Bhuddists i can assure you, but yes you are right Timur was more tartar then Mongol - although its the same stock really, and he tried to marry into the Ghenghis bloodline.