What Are The Differences Between The Amorites And Mongols

Initially faced with disgust and contempt by the indigenous peoples they conquered, the Amorites of ancient Mesopotamia were nonetheless able to bring about extraordinary societal change to the land between two rivers. Unbeknownst to themselves, the Amorites set the model for future land-hungry nomadic groups to follow. Notably, the Mongolians in the 13th century followed in the steps of the Amorites to realize a comparable demographic shift.
Although both Amorites and Mongols alike were able to succeed in their goals of conquest in their respective regions, their relative success in empire building afterwards varied greatly. One significant perceptible phenomenon that can be used to compare and contrast the two groups is that of religious
Akkadian literature during the era speaks unflatteringly of Amorites, looking down on their nomadic and “primitive” lifestyle. In one instance, the Akkadians record:
“The MAR.TU who know no grain... The MAR.TU who know no house nor town, the boors of the mountains... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles... who does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat, who has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after death[.]”
To the native Akkadians, the Amorites appear as a barbaric group of clans ruled by aggressive tribal chiefs who senselessly invade land solely to graze their herds. This is most clearly reflected in the etiological origins of the label the Akkadians devised for the Amorites: “mar.tu”. The term mar.tu of Sumer finds its roots in the term mru (mrt) or socially dead (Akhan, page 26). The translation of the word “boor”, or “unrefined” was thus naturally given to the migrating invaders, a group considered “perpetually dead” (Akhan, page 26) because their bodies are not buried in
Until the late 20th century, most scholars of Mongolian China emphasized the destructive influence of Mongolian rule and the great loss of life that followed in the wake of their conquests. In comparison, leading Amorite figures such as Hammurabi enjoyed a glowing legacy even among his Hittite and Kassite successors, who retained much of Babylonian culture including his famous code of laws. (Kassite dynasty, 1) The key contrast between the two groups is found in the degree of assimilation pursued by each respective group, most evident in the way the two groups approached religious tolerance. Key to the success and lasting peace of the Amorite empire was the remarkable degree to which the Amorite people adopted Sumerian religious customs. Indeed, older Sumerian myths and epic tales were “piously copied, translated, or adapted” (New World Encyclopedia, 3). Amorite religious practice was simple: it merely allowed Mesopotamian religion to continue its natural transition from one with many local deities to a regional pantheon of major and minor