Mongolia today has Genghis Khan on their money, particularly the 20000 Tugrik banknote. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean Mongolians generally approve of what he did, just like Americans today don't agree with everything the guys on our money did.

Mongolia sees Genghis Khan as a George Washington type figure, which I think is relatively fair. It's not like Italy does of a lot of introspection of the "bad" sides of its Roman heritage.

The Mongols were a mix of modern and violent and ruthless before he (Chinggis Khan) died that you don't really see elsewhere.

This seems to be an ongoing trend, and this article continues the trend by casting the Mongols as some kind of egalitarian society.

20 years ago-ish, a book came out about Chingis Khan that extolled the virtues of his multicultural, pantheistic regime and totally glossed over the many genocides the Mongols perpetrated. Not to mention the guy probably raped more women than anyone else in history.

Edit: To add to this, a lot of what is written about Mongols in Chingis Khan's time is conjecture. They were not a literate people, so there are almost no records. They were nomadic and buried their leaders in secret locations, leaving scant archeological evidence. Many conclusions that have been drawn about the Mongols are speculative. Fast forward to the Yuan dynasty where there are records in Chinese. That era and locality have better documentation.

People tend to have starry eyed views of successful empires that not only conquered a lot of territory, but were able to rule for some time. Because there is inherent difficulty in administering areas spanning many cultures, ethnicities, creeds.

Most of those things you said can apply to the Assyrians, the Romans, the British, or any other similar empire, and people still idealize those places today. If your empire holds together long enough to get a period of Pax named after you, it means you've made it in the eyes of history.

Whoever wrote this article? Obviously, are you asking a rhetorical question?

Not an rhetorical question at all.

I didn't see any wholistic judgment of the Mongol empire in the article.

The Mongols did tons of amazing, fascinating, and great things. They also did terrible and atrocious things.

The later should not preclude curiosity and appreciation of the former.

Do you really think whoever wrote this article fondly reminisces of the Mongol Empire? If I list some positives of Byzantium does that mean I am fond of whatever they did in aggregate?

These guys.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD1gDSao1eA

some mongol people to this day.

People tend to ignore their ancestor's warcrimes. Even if they admit they were evil they can't bring themselves to hate them.

This applies to most old empires, many people can't bring themselves to hate the entire empire despite their barbarity.

People should absolutely cultivate a balanced and accurate understanding of the past. I don't think anyone should cultivate hate.

Netflix’s Marco Polo did - quite fondly.

currently CCP