NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that for some reason, people around these forums seem to praise Genghis Khan. When I ask why they say things like: "he was just". Which is utter blarney. When I point this out I get responses like "he was a successful conquerer, good enough".

Imagine the following situation: there is guy named Bob. He is happy. One day he neighbor red-neck friends burst into his house, and beat his 6-year old son to death. As he is crying they grab the meat-cleaver and butcher him despite his family's protests. They then lock his other sons in a room and start it on fire, chuckling the whole way. Then they rape his wife and daughter.
After the house burns-down they kill the wife so she won't drag on their food, and keep the daughter. As they leave they enjoy all the food and money they managed to steal from the guy's house. Now they do this in huge groups, and kill millions doing it. Here you have the infamous Genghis Khan.

I find it strange that so many people admire him for being "badass." Yes he was bad (if not evil), and he was an ass. Not an admirable person though.

As a follow-up, so many people get upset because I admire Cesare Borgia. Well, whatever you say Khan did for art, he did much more. He also outlawed pillaging, and forced his men to treat civilians humanely.

Thus, I believe equipoise is damaged.

The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.

You have to judge people by the standards of their time and their culture. Brutally sacking invaded cities was normal practice at the time, and Genghis Khan was no better or worse than many others of the time. The reason Genghis is remembered is because he was far more successful in doing that than anyone else, ever.

People admire him for his military strategy and his ability to form a massive functioning multicultural civilisation from a group of nomadic tribes and their conquered peoples.
That said, the military genius partly belonged to his general Subutai.

You have to judge people by the standards of their time and their culture. Brutally sacking invaded cities was normal practice at the time, and Genghis Khan was no better or worse than many others of the time.

Therefor all Nazis who killed Jews are justified; therefor all people who whipped slaves are justified. If Borgia could see the stupidity of plundering civilians, so could Genghis Khan.

The reason Genghis is remembered is because he was far more successful in doing that than anyone else, ever.

Aye. And Stalin was quite successful at keeping power.

People admire him for his military strategy and his ability to form a massive functioning multicultural civilization from a group of nomadic tribes and their conquered peoples.

Bringing along millions of deaths for the ride?

[QUOTE]That said, the military genius partly belonged to his general Subutai.

The plot thickens.

Genghis Khan built one of the largest empires in the world. His armies scared the shit out of the Europeans to such an extent that many thought the end times were upon them.
Your hero, on the other hand, was put into power by the Pope and toppled the second he lost Papal backing. His "empire" didn't even cover all of Italy.

Khan got results, and he got them through his own wits and the strength of his armies. Cesar got jack shit done, and needed the support of the Pope to get even that accomplished.

Therefore all Nazis who killed Jews are justified; therefore all people who whipped slaves are justified.
Because nations all over the world were rounding up and gassing their Jewish populations during the 30's and 40's weren't they?
I claim Godwin incidently

Genghis Khan built one of the largest empires in the world. His armies scared the shit out of the Europeans to such an extent that many thought the end times were upon them.

So did Hitler.

Your hero, on the other hand, was put into power by the Pope and toppled the second he lost Papal backing. His "empire" didn't even cover all of Italy.

I already stated in a previous thread, that if he wasn't sick when his Dad died, then he would have kept power. That said, his tactics were much more humane then Khan's. If he wiped-out whole locations, then sure they would have been his. But what's to conquer?

Khan got results, and he got them through his own wits and the strength of his armies. Cesar got jack shit done, and needed the support of the Pope to get even that accomplished.

Khan caused results that were detrimental to millions. Cesare improved the lives of many, and funded arts.

Because nations all over the world were rounding up and gassing their Jewish populations during the 30's and 40's weren't they?
I claim Godwin incidently

No, because it was the present cultural movement in Germany that the "Aryans" were superior and all other races needed to be put-to-death.

What exactly is a Moon Calf?

Yeah, I always thought he was a dick. I wouldn't model myself on him.

What exactly is a Moon Calf?

Mooncalf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooncalf).

Genghis Khan slaughtered the citizens of cities who resisted his invasion. By doing this he scared the neighbouring cities into surrendering peacefully. This doesn't excuse his actions but it does show a logical purpose. It wasn't done out of hatred. You can call his actions evil, but not stupid, it was very successful.

Also, unlike Stalin or Hitler, he didn't brutalise his own people or attempt genocide.

I never said he was crazy. I never said he didn't have non-emotional motives. I just said he wasn't to be admired. The people he killed weren't confined to specific race (he was, after-all, open-minded); that doesn't justify them.

Therefor all Nazis who killed Jews are justified; therefor all people who whipped slaves are justified. If Borgia could see the stupidity of plundering civilians, so could Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan slaughtered the citizens of cities who resisted his invasion. By doing this he scared the neighbouring cities into surrendering peacefully. This doesn't excuse his actions but it does show a logical purpose. It wasn't done out of hatred. You can call his actions evil, but not stupid, it was very successful.

Also, unlike Stalin or Hitler, he didn't brutalise his own people or attempt genocide.

So did Hitler.
Not a valid comparison. If you could even call what the Nazis had an empire, it didn't even last a decade. Hitler is a terrible example of a leader because, unlike Genghis, he didn't get results.
Stalin is a closer comparison, but that doesn't quite work either, as he inherited a huge country to begin with.
I already stated in a previous thread, that if he wasn't sick when his Dad died, then he would have kept power. That said, his tactics were much more humane then Khan's. If he wiped-out whole locations, then sure they would have been his. But what's to conquer?
Sez you. The fact is, he didn't, and we can't tell what might have been.
Genghis rose above, made fortune his foot stool, and all that good stuff. The best you can say for Cesare is that he folded and then his pathetic holdings were scattered.
Khan caused results that were detrimental to millions. Cesare improved the lives of many, and funded arts.
Genghis Khan also turned his tribe and countrymen into kings; it is in the nature of rulers that they are good to some and bad to others.

Not a valid comparison. If you could even call what the Nazis had an empire, it didn't even last a decade. Hitler is a terrible example of a leader because, unlike Genghis, he didn't get results.
Stalin is a closer comparison, but that doesn't quite work either, as he inherited a huge country to begin with.
Ah, I see. So if Hitler's empire had endured, he would have admirable?

Sez you. The fact is, he didn't, and we can't tell what might have been.
As you wish.
Genghis rose above, made fortune his foot stool, and all that good stuff.
And massacred millions, upon millions of innocents to do it.
The best you can say for Cesare is that he folded and then his pathetic holdings were scattered.
I can also say he was genuinely loved by those he conquered. A little different from Genghis.
Genghis Khan also turned his tribe and countrymen into kings; it is in the nature of rulers that they are good to some and bad to others.
Ya, sure, great guy. Kills millions, burns whole cities, butchers children, rapes girls. But he gave stolen money and women to his men, so he made-up for his fallacies.

I never said he was crazy. I never said he didn't have non-emotional motives. I just said he wasn't to be admired. The people he killed weren't confined to specific race (he was, after-all, open-minded); that doesn't justify them.

You are judging him by modern twenty-first century morality. Morality is relative, it changes with the times.

The Romans committed similar atrocities, but there is plenty to admire in their history.

Genghis Khan's behaviour was not unusual for a twelfth century leader. His brutal actions made him infamous because he was more successful than anyone else, and therefore what he did was on a larger scale.

Creating a vast and advanced civilisation out of nothing is something to be admired.

You are judging him by modern twenty-first century morality. Morality is relative, it changes with the times.
I agree that morality is relative. I am judging him by how much harm he did to people, compared to how much good. It takes a lot more good then he did to make-up for 40,000,000 deaths.
The Romans committed similar atrocities, but there is plenty to admire in their history.
You're talking a race, I'm talking an individual.
Genghis Khan's behavior was not unusual for a twelfth century leader. His brutal actions made him infamous because he was more successful than anyone else, and therefore what he did was on a larger scale.
Indeed. Tell me again: what's to admire?
Creating a vast and advanced civilization out of nothing is something to be admired.
He didn't create it "out of nothing". He stole what others had and used it to his own ends.

Ah, I see. So if Hitler's empire had endured, he would have admirable?
For Hitler's empire to endure, it would have had to be helmed by a completely different person than Hitler. The man was nuts and his vision was doomed to begin with. Completely non-admirable.
And massacred millions, upon millions of innocents to do it.
Getting great things done requires great cost. How many died to build the pyramids? How many lives were lost in the struggle to discover all the world?
I can also say he was genuinely loved by those he conquered. A little different from Genghis.
If they genuinely loved him, than he would have been able to hold onto his power after losing Papal support, don't you think? All renaissance pretensions of reform aside, the man was a puppet, and as soon as his master couldn't help him, he toppled.
Ya, sure, great guy. Kills millions, burns whole cities, butchers children, rapes girls. But he gave stolen money and women to his men, so he made-up for his fallacies.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
All governments steal, all warriors kill and all armies rape.

For Hitler's empire to endure, it would have had to be helmed by a completely different person than Hitler. The man was nuts and his vision was doomed to begin with. Completely non-admirable.
Nuts? Well, he wasn't always searching for a cure to morality. What exactly do you mean by "nuts"?
Getting great things done requires great cost. How many died to build the pyramids? How many lives were lost in the struggle to discover all the world?
I'm sorry, but most of the killing he did was totally unnecessary. I don't know what you mean by "great" exactly. What would be worth purchasing if it cost 40 million lives?
If they genuinely loved him, than he would have been able to hold onto his power after losing Papal support, don't you think?
Fear is stronger then love. Anyway, he woke-up one morning and was secretly arrested by Spanish mercenaries sent by the new Pope. After he was taken away, plenty of people demanded his return, but didn't get it. Who is to say he couldn't have held-on?
All renaissance pretensions of reform aside, the man was a puppet, and as soon as his master couldn't help him, he toppled.
I don't where you get that stinking hot pile of hog shottis.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
A flaw, generally in an argument?
All governments steal, all warriors kill and all armies rape.
Hmmm. Funny, I thought I just mentioned that Borgia didn't. Why did Genghis Khan have to?

I agree that morality is relative. I am judging him by how much harm he did to people, compared to how much good. It takes a lot more good then he did to make-up for 40,000,000 deaths.
There is no accurate figure of how many deaths he caused.

You're talking a race, I'm talking an individual.
No, you're talking about a race also. Genghis didn't personally do all that is credited to him.

He didn't create it "out of nothing". He stole what others had and used it to his own ends.
That's very much a matter of opinion.

Hmmm. Funny, I thought I just mentioned that Borgia didn't. Why did Genghis Khan have to?
Your comparison with Borgia is irrelevant. They lived nearly 300 years apart, had completely different upbringings, and ruled completely different societies. Borgia had neither the opportunity nor the ability to do what Genghis did.
It's like comparing George W Bush with Napoleon.

There is no accurate figure of how many deaths he caused.

Only the records which the Mongolians kept, which state the quoted figure.

No, you're talking about a race also. Genghis didn't personally do all that is credited to him.

He condoned and encouraged it.

That's very much a matter of opinion.

What isn't?

Your comparison with Borgia is irrelevant. They lived nearly 300 years apart, had completely different upbringings, and ruled completely different societies.

Ah. But it was the custom of both societies to pillage and rape. Borgia ended it, Genghis encouraged it.

Borgia had neither the opportunity nor the ability to do what Genghis did.
It's like comparing George W Bush with Napoleon.
Not exactly. We're talking two rulers, that although they ruled quite different societies, they faced the same decisions. Genghis Khan used over-kill of innocent to an extraordinary extent. Borgia outlawed atrocities. They both faced use of pillage, and both reacted differently. When Borgia defeated the woman that ruled Milan, he admired her for putting-up so good a fight. He gave her an estate, and treated her like a person. Compare with Genghis Khan's treatment of women.

Nuts? Well, he wasn't always searching for a cure to morality. What exactly do you mean by "nuts"?
All that nonsense about the Aryan race and his great destiny. Rational leaders don't murder millions of their own people. And, no, I don't mean that in the sense that Genghis killed people in order to conquer land, I mean that Hitler killed German citizens whom he already had dominance over.
Fear is stronger then love.
And the Mongols scared the ever living shit out of everybody.
And don't pull the Machiavelli of The Prince would side with Genghis over Cesare because he was interested only in the effectiveness with which men could take and hold power.
Hmmm. Funny, I thought I just mentioned that Borgia didn't. Why did Genghis Khan have to?
Borgia made war, and that means that people got killed on his account; he seized the property of his enemies, like Genghis; and though Cesare might have banned rape and pillaging, it certainly happened anyway.

Only the records which the Mongolians kept, which state the quoted figure.
Got a source for that? I'm pretty sure the Mongols kept no records of casualties.


Not exactly. We're talking two rulers, that although they ruled quite different societies, they faced the same decisions. Genghis Khan used over-kill of innocent to an extraordinary extent. Borgia outlawed atrocities. They both faced use of pillage, and both reacted differently. When Borgia defeated the woman that ruled Milan, he admired her for putting-up so good a fight. He gave her an estate, and treated her like a person. Compare with Genghis Khan's treatment of women.
They acted according to their upbringing. Borgia was a chivalrous Christian. Genghis was a nomadic warrior. There's no comparison.

Sure, Genghis killed people. Which conqueror hasn't? But he was just, and he always gave the opportunity to simply join him before he attacked a town. He made sure that the law was universal, and that everybody had to observe it. I don't know the exact degree of success, but his rule suffered less corruption than any of the Mongol Empire's neighbors.

The old story about a virgin with a sack of gold travelling from one side of the empire to another unmolested is not without fact.

Got a source for that? I'm pretty sure the Mongols kept no records of casualties.

It is estimated that Genghis Khan was responsible for the deaths of 40 million people across Asia and Europe, but some researchers cite evidence that he might have exaggerated his massacres to terrify his foes into submission, marking the first time an army employed such shock-and-awe tactics.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/22/ING5OCQ5N71.DTL
Look other sources-up online. They generally account that 40 million+ deaths.

They acted according to their upbringing. Borgia was a chivalrous Christian. Genghis was a nomadic warrior. There's no comparison.

"Chivalrous Christian?" :p Where the hell do you get that nonsense?

Sure, Genghis killed people. Which conqueror hasn't? But he was just, and he always gave the opportunity to simply join him before he attacked a town. He made sure that the law was universal, and that everybody had to observe it. I don't know the exact degree of success, but his rule suffered less corruption than any of the Mongol Empire's neighbors.

The old story about a virgin with a sack of gold travelling from one side of the empire to another unmolested is not without fact.

Okay, I give you a chance to hand-over your valuables You don't, then I shoot you and take them.

I did give you a chance. So ergo I'm "just."

I admire his brains to have built his empire on a meritocracy rather than a monarchy.

I admire his brains to have built his empire on a meritocracy rather than a monarchy.

He was intelligent. No arguments there.

BLASPHEMY!

How dare you insult the greatest man of all time!!!

He didn't rape and pillage every village. He did it to one and let messengers encourage neighboring villages to surrender.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K7t_q9WzKKw

lolz

Better video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erFhnxVqXDg&NR=1&v3)

Mongolian Trojan Horse...lolz

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K7t_q9WzKKw

lolz

That puts up a very convincing argument.

I've noticed that for some reason, people around these forums seem to praise Genghis Khan. When I ask why they say things like: "he was just". Which is utter blarney. When I point this out I get responses like "he was a successful conquerer, good enough".

Imagine the following situation: there is guy named Bob. He is happy. One day he neighbor red-neck friends burst into his house, and beat his 6-year old son to death. As he is crying they grab the meat-cleaver and butcher him despite his family's protests. They then lock his other sons in a room and start it on fire, chuckling the whole way. Then they rape his wife and daughter.
After the house burns-down they kill the wife so she won't drag on their food, and keep the daughter. As they leave they enjoy all the food and money they managed to steal from the guy's house. Now they do this in huge groups, and kill millions doing it. Here you have the infamous Genghis Khan.

I find it strange that so many people admire him for being "badass." Yes he was bad (if not evil), and he was an ass. Not an admirable person though.

As a follow-up, so many people get upset because I admire Cesare Borgia. Well, whatever you say Khan did for art, he did much more. He also outlawed pillaging, and forced his men to treat civilians humanely.

Thus, I believe equipoise is damaged.

First of all, I think you're just pissed you didn't inherit any of his amazing genes.

Second, he didn't rape women and kill people randomly, his soldiers did. Also, unlike Hitler's regime, he did not commit crimes on his own people, only to those who refused to be his people, so you can't really compare them.

Third, the benefits of his conquests are immense and he has had tremendous impact on the world today. It allowed trade, art, and learning to travel across Asia and even to Europe. It greatly increased the wealth of many of his subjects, and it furthered the arts and science, more than what Borgia did by the way.

Fourth, the impacts of his reign are huge. His descendants would continue to conquer the world in the centuries after his death. From Turkey, to Central Asia, to India, his descendants continued to conquer, and that shows his importance. And as you probably know, a significant portion of the world today is a descendent of him, so basically he's as important as a man can get.

Now, as for him being good or not, I agree that some of the things his methods of obtaining power were not civilized and brutal. But he wasn't any more brutal than most rulers of his time, he simply had the power for his brutality to be noticeable. Oh yeah, and he did treat his civilians humanely, key word: his.

Finally, I honestly don't know why you like Borgia. He got what he had from one of the most corrupt Popes ever, and although he had some talent, it just wasn't enough to really get anything done. You claim he did more for art, total bull shit. And as for banning pillaging and treating civilians humanely, he's far off from being the first to do so, and certainly not the last.

I agree that morality is relative. I am judging him by how much harm he did to people, compared to how much good. It takes a lot more good then he did to make-up for 40,000,000 deaths.

You're talking a race, I'm talking an individual.

Indeed. Tell me again: what's to admire?

He didn't create it "out of nothing". He stole what others had and used it to his own ends.

Just wanted to point out that the Romans weren't a single race (at least not by the middle), and that they were a civilization/group/some other word I cannot remember that expresses my thoughts. And the deaths that occurred were not caused by an individual (Genghis Khan), but rather by his armies.

I've noticed that for some reason, people around these forums seem to praise Genghis Khan.

He was good at what he did.

That is all.

It is entirely irrelevant that he didn't give the people he conquered 5,000 in cash and free retirement plans. He wasn't a humanitarian, he was a warlord or whatever you want to call him. His 'job' was to help himself and his people by literally slaughtering and taking over as many other nations as possible.

The reason Genghis is remembered is because he was far more successful in doing that than anyone else, ever.
No, he wasn't. He died early on into his expansion. The majority of it was done under his children and grandchildren.

In the Mongolian Empire, its citizenry enjoyed:

Religious tolerance. You could pray to whomever, whatever, whenever you wanted, without judgment or interference. I seriously doubt that would be the case with rednecks.

Sexual equality. Women stood on the same legal footing as men. [snickering at the visualization of sexual equality amongst rednecks] [Okay, guffawing] [Okay, busting a gut, rolling on the floor and startling the cat with the vehemence of my laughter]

Furthermore...
The Khans guaranteed safe passage to all travelers on all roads throughout the empire. They conscripted the locals in each town and village to patrol the roads and secure them against bandits. Same timeframe in Europe? Fuhgeddaboutit. You were on your own. Even modern-day United States can't do that good.

The process of getting in on this? Simply, open the gates to your city and make the horde welcome when they appeared over the hill. They only did the rapine, pillaging and plundering if your (likely corrupt) leader had something to hide and barred the gates.

I think the only similarities between the Khans/Mongols and rednecks is that they lived rural lifestyles and were illiterate. Otherwise, bad analogy.

First of all, I think you're just pissed you didn't inherit any of his amazing genes.

I have Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Good enough.

Second, he didn't rape women and kill people randomly, his soldiers did. Also, unlike Hitler's regime, he did not commit crimes on his own people, only to those who refused to be his people, so you can't really compare them.
I see. Well that's a valid campaign method: "let me rule you, or I'll kill every man, woman, and child in the area."
Third, the benefits of his conquests are immense and he has had tremendous impact on the world today. It allowed trade, art, and learning to travel across Asia and even to Europe. It greatly increased the wealth of many of his subjects, and it furthered the arts and science, more than what Borgia did by the way.
Maybe you're thinking of Kublai Khan. Borgia did help arts. He, for instance recognized Michelangelo when no-one else did.
Fourth, the impacts of his reign are huge. His descendants would continue to conquer the world in the centuries after his death. From Turkey, to Central Asia, to India, his descendants continued to conquer, and that shows his importance. And as you probably know, a significant portion of the world today is a descendent of him, so basically he's as important as a man can get.
I'm guessing he had so many descendants (probably more then anyone else who ever lived) because he was so humane to conquered women. He probably did his far share of raping.
Now, as for him being good or not, I agree that some of the things his methods of obtaining power were not civilized and brutal.
"Some" is an understatement.
But he wasn't any more brutal than most rulers of his time, he simply had the power for his brutality to be noticeable. Oh yeah, and he did treat his civilians humanely, key word: his.
I guess if you treat your own humanely, then all else is fine. Like if we went around slaughtering civilians in Iraq, that's their problem.
Finally, I honestly don't know why you like Borgia. He got what he had from one of the most corrupt Popes ever, and although he had some talent, it just wasn't enough to really get anything done. You claim he did more for art, total bull shit. And as for banning pillaging and treating civilians humanely, he's far off from being the first to do so, and certainly not the last.

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3432&pageno=7

I have Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Good enough.


I see. Well that's a valid campaign method: "let me rule you, or I'll kill every man, woman, and child in the area."
Maybe you're thinking of Kublai Khan. Borgia did help arts. He, for instance recognized Michelangelo when no-one else did.

I'm guessing he had so many descendants (probably more then anyone else who ever lived) because he was so humane to conquered women. He probably did his far share of raping.

"Some" is an understatement.

I guess if you treat your own humanely, then all else is fine. Like if we went around slaughtering civilians in Iraq, that's their problem.


http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3432&pageno=7

a) Well it's an effective one.

b) Genghis Khan did help the arts, he funded them and encouraged their making in his empire, as did Kublai Khan.

c) No-one else?

d) I'm quite sure with a man that powerful that they were all willing.

e) And the importance you give to Borgia is an overstatement.

f) The people in Iraq will never be ours, and the government had no intention of making them our citizens. Genghis Khan had the intention of bringing all under his rule, so it's a totally different story, because with Genghis Khan if you surrendered and were loyal you became part of an empire that conferred more benefits to its people than any ever before.

a) Well it's an effective one.

b) Genghis Khan did help the arts, he funded them and encouraged their making in his empire, as did Kublai Khan.

c) No-one else?

d) I'm quite sure with a man that powerful that they were all willing.

e) And the importance you give to Borgia is an overstatement.

f) The people in Iraq will never be ours, and the government had no intention of making them our citizens. Genghis Khan had the intention of bringing all under his rule, so it's a totally different story, because with Genghis Khan if you surrendered and were loyal you became part of an empire that conferred more benefits to its people than any ever before.

a) Indeed.

b) Proof, if you will. Examples.

c) Well, he employed Da Vinci.

d) I'm sure a good-deal were. Not all.

e) Conceivably.

f) Our nation provides a goodal deal of benefits Iraq doesn't. Supposing we did demand the Iraqis be assimilated into the U.S. If they turned-us-down, would we have the right to butcher innocents?

Ghenghis Khan and the Mongols were the greatest mass-murderers in history. They destroyed what they themselves could not create.

Creating a vast and advanced civilisation out of nothing is something to be admired.

The Mongols didn't create a 'vast and advanced civilization', you buffoon. They were illiterate and unschooled. Ghenghis Khan himself was illiterate. They were the very definition of barbarians. They were murderers on a scale never before seen.

Ghenghis Khan and the Mongols were the greatest mass-murderers in history. They destroyed what they themselves could not create.

Just so. However, most seem to think they were cool.

Just so. However, most seem to think they were cool.

Indeed, and out of total ignorance. I've spent years studying the subject. The Mongols annihilated total populations. That was their modus operandi. Beautiful civilizations and cities saw their end at the hands of these inhumane, sadistic killers. Did you know it was common practice for them to eat the livers of the fallen? Just one example of their inhumanity.

a) Indeed.

b) Proof, if you will. Examples.

c) Well, he employed Da Vinci.

d) I'm sure a good-deal were. Not all.

e) Conceivably.

f) Our nation provides a goodal deal of benefits Iraq doesn't. Supposing we did demand the Iraqis be assimilated into the U.S. If they turned-us-down, would we have the right to butcher innocents?

a) Too lazy right now, I might dig something up later...

b) He wasn't the only person to ever employ Da Vinci.

c) Well you don't have any specific proof of him raping anyone.

d) Well it wouldn't be "right", but then you could actually use it to compare to Genghis Khan's action, which you cannot in the current situation.

Genghis vs. Borgia aside, the reason why Genghis has such a large following can be summed up in a single word: Masculinity.
The man epitomized raw, untamed manhood: he was virile, dominant, wise, violent, strong, tough, aggressive courageous, brilliant and ambitious. What's more, he was the ultimate Darwinist anti-hero (it has been theorized that as many as 1 in 200 men are his descendants). He was given almost nothing, and seized (yes, seized, not "requisitioned," not "earned," not "bought," but seized) almost everything.

There are other ways to justify a liking of him, but those are just justifications. What people really like about Genghis Khan is that, in him, they see the closest thing there has ever been or ever will be to a "real man."
What is Borgia? At best, a member of his society. Maybe he was moral, smart, or a competent ruler, but that’s still nothing we haven't seen a million times before and won't see a million times again. Hitlers and Ghandis, even, come along once every couple hundred years, but Ghengis Khans only occur once in the whole history of the species.

I like Genghis because he respected the people he killed enough to eat their livers. Eating what you kill is just good sportmanship.

First of all, I think you're just pissed you didn't inherit any of his amazing genes.

Second, he didn't rape women and kill people randomly, his soldiers did. Also, unlike Hitler's regime, he did not commit crimes on his own people, only to those who refused to be his people, so you can't really compare them.

Third, the benefits of his conquests are immense and he has had tremendous impact on the world today. It allowed trade, art, and learning to travel across Asia and even to Europe. It greatly increased the wealth of many of his subjects, and it furthered the arts and science, more than what Borgia did by the way.

Fourth, the impacts of his reign are huge. His descendants would continue to conquer the world in the centuries after his death. From Turkey, to Central Asia, to India, his descendants continued to conquer, and that shows his importance. And as you probably know, a significant portion of the world today is a descendent of him, so basically he's as important as a man can get.

Now, as for him being good or not, I agree that some of the things his methods of obtaining power were not civilized and brutal. But he wasn't any more brutal than most rulers of his time, he simply had the power for his brutality to be noticeable. Oh yeah, and he did treat his civilians humanely, key word: his.

Finally, I honestly don't know why you like Borgia. He got what he had from one of the most corrupt Popes ever, and although he had some talent, it just wasn't enough to really get anything done. You claim he did more for art, total bull shit. And as for banning pillaging and treating civilians humanely, he's far off from being the first to do so, and certainly not the last.

Ghenghis Khan was a mass-murdering, illiterate barbarian. The Mongols left nothing to this world except desolated and devastated lands, and, literally, mountains of skulls. Name me a Mongol philosopher, a Mongol architect, a Mongol poet. There is nothing. They committed genocide against the Persian people, exterminating them from Central Asia. Khorasan, at the time of the invasion, was publishing 15,000 texts a year. It was the center of Persian culture, and a renaissance of culture and beauty was taking place.

Check and see what happened to these beautiful and cultured cities and people. Read about Merv, Nishapur, Herat, Urgench, and Bukhara.

These cities were completely annihilated. Their population was exterminated. It was a policy of extermination.

The myth of the Mongols only killing those who resisted wouldn't exist, if not for the stupidity that abounds. The city of Merv threw open it's gates to the Mongols. What happened? Genocide of the population. The ruler of Baghdad, which had a population near 1,000,000, surrendered his city to the Mongols as Hulagu promised he'd be humane (something the Mongols never were) --- they proceeded to murder the entire population in the span of a couple days.

You don't know about this, or simply don't care (my guess), because you're ignorant, and yet you dare to speak in this forum about the goodness of these worthless killers?

Bottom line: you can admire the Mongols for what they did, but in doing so, you must recognize the brilliance, along this same line, of the Soviet Union and Mao's China, for the sheer murderous, dysgenic, magnificence.

Basically, welcome to the dark side.

Because nations all over the world were rounding up and gassing their Jewish populations during the 30's and 40's weren't they?


I'm rather tired of people acting like only Jews were the only victims. Gypsies, undesireables and even Russian Slavics I imagine were subjected to the camps.

As for ethnic cleansing being a trend, it was one, and still ongoing. Tasmanian aboriginals, Armenians, American Indians, Mayans, Incans, Darfurians (sp?)the list just goes on.

Just because everyone wasn't doing it at the same time doesn't mean it wasn't a trend.

Ghenghis Khan was a mass-murdering, illiterate barbarian. The Mongols left nothing to this world except desolated and devastated lands, and, literally, mountains of skulls. Name me a Mongol philosopher, a Mongol architect, a Mongol poet. There is nothing. They committed genocide against the Persian people, exterminating them from Central Asia. Khorasan, at the time of the invasion, was publishing 15,000 texts a year. It was the center of Persian culture, and a renaissance of culture and beauty was taking place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty

The process of getting in on this? Simply, open the gates to your city and make the horde welcome when they appeared over the hill. They only did the rapine, pillaging and plundering if your (likely corrupt) leader had something to hide and barred the gates.

Ergo, the Japanese were fully justified in the rape of Nanking. Hitler was fully justified in wiping out any Russian settlements his armies took.

It's amazing what you can justify on the grounds of "You didn't bow down when I said so"

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3432&pageno=7

Do you have any sources by academics?

Meh, Genghis Khan was just a notable person in history a long long time ago, most people admire Caesar and Napoleon and Alexander the Great and Hannibal etc. too and they weren't really peace-loving either. Maybe in a few hundred years Hitler and Stalin will be admired too. Isn't it also so that most sources we have about Genghis Khan are from his enemies and a little bit biased?

Well, he was an utter, and I can't stress this enough, ****, but there is something so awe-inspiring about an empire that at its peak stretched from Poland to the Sea of Japan. Say what you like, but it's still a massive (to the point of absurdity) achievemet for a bunch of 13th Century goat herders.

Hitlers and Ghandis, even, come along once every couple hundred years, but Ghengis Khans only occur once in the whole history of the species.

Oh, bullcrap. The entire history of the species? We must be a really fucking pathetic species then. On par with mold.

Oh wait, we are.

Do you have any sources by academics?

That book is by Rafael Sabatini, and I would trust his facts more then just about any other historian before him (Durant excluded).

He sites his sources throughout, so don't worry there. He goes over multiple possibilities, whereas most historians just state what "probably" happened as fact.

Julius Caesar was a major jerk. Napoleon was quite good until later in his reign, during which he became and idiot. Alexander was threatened by the Persians, so his war was justified; and he did not wipe out those he conquered. Hannibal was merely defending his side, like Rommel. Still, I don't find him all that admirable.

Most of the sources we have about Genghis Khan were written by the Mongols.

Absolute and total bullshit.

Tell that to Thebes. Nothing left standing save a few temples and the house of the poet Pindar. Everything else burnt to the ground.

Meh, Genghis Khan was just a notable person in history a long long time ago, most people admire Caesar and Napoleon and Alexander the Great and Hannibal etc. too and they weren't really peace-loving either. Maybe in a few hundred years Hitler and Stalin will be admired too. Isn't it also so that most sources we have about Genghis Khan are from his enemies and a little bit biased?

Julius Caesar was a major jerk. Napoleon was quite good until later in his reign, during which he became and idiot. Alexander was threatened by the Persians, so his war was justified; and he did not wipe out those he conquered. Hannibal was merely defending his side, like Rommel. Still, I don't find him all that admirable.

Most of the sources we have about Genghis Khan were written by the Mongols.

Most of the sources we have about Genghis Khan were written by the Mongols.

that surprises me (I admit thinking that they didn't bother writing those things down, but yeah after thinking a while i guess it would have been extremely hard to manage such an empire without writing a lot. Sometimes I wish I had chosen history ;) )

that surprises me (I admit thinking that they didn't bother writing those things down, but yeah after thinking a while i guess it would have been extremely hard to manage such an empire without writing a lot. Sometimes I wish I had chosen history ;) )

I chose history. I love it.

Oh, bullcrap. The entire history of the species? We must be a really fucking pathetic species then. On par with mold.

Oh wait, we are.
Some might say it's a good thing that humanity probably won't give rise to anyone else capable of raping their way across an entire continent. We're too civilized and mechanized for Genghis Khan's life to replicated now.
Or did you just not read the rest of my post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_tolls

Absolute and total bullshit.

Tell that to Thebes. Nothing left standing save a few temples and the house of the poet Pindar. Everything else burnt to the ground.

It pays to be a poet sometimes. Just in case a roving mongol horde comes to town.

Absolute and total bullshit.

Tell that to Thebes. Nothing left standing save a few temples and the house of the poet Pindar. Everything else burnt to the ground.

First: Thebes was a rebelling state, not a conquest.

Second: Alexander later regretted his actions. The same cannot be said of GK.

Third: I never liked Alexander "the Great" anyways.

First: Thebes was a rebelling state, not a conquest.

Second: Alexander later regretted his actions. The same cannot be said of GK.

Third: I never liked Alexander "the Great" anyways.

1: You're correct, and I wasn't trying to assert that it was. Though I do see now that that was your original statement.

2: And I regret having eaten the taco I just ate. That doesn't make the problem go away, and it doesn't mitigate the action.

3: I never did either.

1: You're correct, and I wasn't trying to assert that it was. Though I do see now that that was your original statement.

2: And I regret having eaten the taco I just ate. That doesn't make the problem go away, and it doesn't mitigate the action.

3: I never did either.

:eek:

*tosses bag over your head and pulls you into an anti-pie clown-proof bunker*

1: You're correct, and I wasn't trying to assert that it was. Though I do see now that that was your original statement.

Just so.

2: And I regret having eaten the taco I just ate. That doesn't make the problem go away, and it doesn't mitigate the action.


But it shows that he had at least some redeemable qualities.

3: I never did either.

Just so.

But it shows that he had at least some redeemable qualities.

Khan had redeemable qualities. He was, despite being barbaric in his military actions, a competent ruler and a patron of the arts, under whom citizens did have freedom of religion, and nder whom women did have more equality than they did in other regions of the world at the same time.

I don't like the old conqueror, nor do I admire him, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to totally villify him in defiance of the facts.

Khan had redeemable qualities. He was, despite being barbaric in his military actions, a competent ruler and a patron of the arts, under whom citizens did have freedom of religion, and nder whom women did have more equality than they did in other regions of the world at the same time.

I don't like the old conqueror, nor do I admire him, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to totally villify him in defiance of the facts.

Defy facts? C'mon, you're an NS'er!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K7t_q9WzKKw

lolz

Better video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erFhnxVqXDg&NR=1&v3)

Mongolian Trojan Horse...lolz

lulz...wasted my time with the first one >_>

:eek:

*tosses bag over your head and pulls you into an anti-pie clown-proof bunker*

Thanks. Who knows what I might've faced had I been left out there to face the inevitable LG onslaught! *shudder*

Defy facts? C'mon, you're an NS'er!

Oh, I know. But every now and then I delude myself into thinking I'm an NS'er with a brain :D

Khan had redeemable qualities. He was, despite being barbaric in his military actions, a competent ruler and a patron of the arts, under whom citizens did have freedom of religion, and nder whom women did have more equality than they did in other regions of the world at the same time.

I don't like the old conqueror, nor do I admire him, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to totally villify him in defiance of the facts.

Wonderfully delightful how ignorant people are. Stick to talking about which brand of cereal you like most.

Wonderfully delightful how ignorant people are. Stick to talking about which brand of cereal you like most.

Baseless rhetoric. Exactly what you've posted in this thread since you started.

You've made broad, unsubstantiated claims with no citations or evidence for your opinions.

Obviously, the only reason you don't discuss your favorite brand of cereal is that you've made it clear that it must be Bran Flakes, as they so thoroughly complement your dementia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_tolls

My point was that the Mongols did not leave nothing to this world other than mountains of skulls and that there were Mongol philosophers/architects/poets etc. in opposition to what you said. However, your response to all of this is that "but he KILLED people!"

Yes, Genghis Khan was a mass murderer, but pretty much everyone has reedeming characteristics. It would be foolish to say that Hitler, for example, did nothing good for Germany.

My point was that the Mongols did not leave nothing to this world other than mountains of skulls and that there were Mongol philosophers/architects/poets etc.

Where? Mind you, it has to come from Mongols. Not from conquered people.

People admire Chingis Khan for the very same reason they admire guns: Power - Men admire men of power and shows of masculinity.

Chingis Khan epitomizes the power and endurance of conquest, capability and masculinity - We admire him because of his merits and legacy of a man of power. In same way we admire Stalin for being an absolute and unquestionable leader despite his well known brutality in excess of the practices of Hitler, whose biggest fault was that in the end he utterly failed and took a cowardly way out.

I also propose that there hasn't been a man alive who at one point didn't want to rule the Earth - for one purpose or another - therefore we can't help but admire someone who set out to do it and ended up being more or less successful at it...be the target of admiration Chingis, Alexander or Iulius.

Admiration of power also goes a long way in explaining why eg. the Civilization series of games are so popular.


It is also very important to realize that admiration doesn't equal approval of the methods used or actions committed in order to reach a goal.

edit:

What this topic needs is a poll:
Do you admire Chingis Khan?
- Yes, I'm a man
- Yes, I'm not a man
- No, I'm not a man
- Other/what/who/where/Gandhi ftw!

:p

Temujin was a brutal conqueror, yes, but I've never heard of a conqueror that did not get his hands dirty in the process.

Caesar is no better than Genghis, in my opinion. Maybe even worse in some ways.

That book is by Rafael Sabatini, and I would trust his facts more then just about any other historian before him (Durant excluded).

Forgive me if I'm wrong (Borgia is slightly out of my field), but Sabatini wasn't a historian was he? I thought he was a middle-rate businessman turned historical romance writer.


(NB: not saying this with any authority I only know about him from osmosis (for want of a better word))

He sites his sources throughout, so don't worry there. He goes over multiple possibilities, whereas most historians just state what "probably" happened as fact.

They do?

Obviously I focused on the wrong area.


I chose history. I love it.


That it is :)

Do you have any sources by academics?

That book is by Rafael Sabatini, and I would trust his facts more then just about any other historian before him (Durant excluded).

He sites his sources throughout, so don't worry there. He goes over multiple possibilities, whereas most historians just state what "probably" happened as fact.

Rafael Sabatini isn't an academic. He is the writer of historical romances.

without Ghengis The world would be less colourful and intrest place there would be no Timur Lane, no Mughal Empire no Kaubla Khan what would poetry be without Kubla its just a shame they never really got to be tested in the small high hedgerowed fields of western Europe it would instresting to see how they evolded to deal with the lack space for grande cavarly attacks,.

Khan was a Mongaloid nappyhead, sure we all like a bit of rape now and then, but he was just greedy.

I don't like Ghengis Khan, and never have.

I respect Khan as a strategic genius, and despise him as a murderer.

Chingis Khan epitomizes the power and endurance of conquest, capability and masculinity - We admire him because of his merits and legacy of a man of power. In same way we admire Stalin for being an absolute and unquestionable leader despite his well known brutality in excess of the practices of Hitler, whose biggest fault was that in the end he utterly failed and took a cowardly way out.

I suppose ending up in captivity and tortured by the Soviets would've been what, a courageous way out? Buffoon.

I don't admire Stalin for being a mentally unstable lunatic who mistook everyone for an enemy, who decimated his own military because of it. He wasn't even Russian. Nobody admires or looks up to Stalin. His writings were devoid of coherency and were ephemeral in value.

without Ghengis The world would be less colourful and intrest place there would be no Timur Lane, no Mughal Empire no Kaubla Khan what would poetry be without Kubla its just a shame they never really got to be tested in the small high hedgerowed fields of western Europe it would instresting to see how they evolded to deal with the lack space for grande cavarly attacks,.

Yeah, cause Timur tried to emulate Ghenghis; murdering, pillaging, exterminating, and raping innocent peoples.

What a man.

Forgive me if I'm wrong (Borgia is slightly out of my field), but Sabatini wasn't a historian was he? I thought he was a middle-rate businessman turned historical romance writer.

He was. He initially wrote history, which became popular only after he started fiction. He knew seven languages, and was quite intelligent.

(NB: not saying this with any authority I only know about him from osmosis (for want of a better word))

Hm.

They do?

Around Sabatini's time and earlier, yes, they generally do. The Borgias they especially do this with. They cite the words of psychopaths, torturers, and professional slanders. The people they site also claimed the devil was often found conversing with Borgia. Of course this isn't mentioned, or else their sources would obviously lose credibility.

Obviously I focused on the wrong area.


Please clarify.

That it is :)

;|

He was. He initially wrote history, which became popular only after he started fiction. He knew seven languages, and was quite intelligent.

I realise that.

However, intelligence, whilst important, isn't the only thing one should consider when judging a historians credentials.

Hm.[quote]

Listening to other people taliking about him.

I never bothered reading him. Historical romances hold no interest for me, I find real history tends to be much more interesting anyway.

[quote]Around Sabatini's time and earlier, yes, they generally do. The Borgias they especially do this with. They cite the words of psychopaths, torturers, and professional slanders. The people they site also claimed the devil was often found conversing with Borgia. Of course this isn't mentioned, or else their sources would obviously lose credibility.

Really?


Please clarify.

I specialised in British social history. In that area historians don't tend to put forward theory as fact.