Like ik he did destroy the house of wisdom and also pillaged cities that didn't surrender... but he was one of the best commanders and strategists of all time, so why the hate?
I don't get the Genghis hate
posted in
Off Topic
I mean he was extremely brutal and held masscres in every region he conquered.
Yea that is true I guess, but he also standardised many things in the lands he conquered and made progress
A byproduct of his conquest, he had no part in any of that. But yes, I agree that from a more objective view his conquest advanced humanity globalization and technological progress as a whole
i am sure you are a fan of colonization then? to you people were uncivilized before the colonizers taught them how to live life.
People were not uncivilised before colonisation, I am not a fan of colonisation, especially European. At least the Mongols didn't form and make borders of countries using straight lines
Only if the villages or places he was conquering didnt cooperate and become allies.
Look at it in their pov, you hear rumors of a faraway “barbarian” horde of warriors asking you to submit to their rule. A. You don’t speak their language, b. Their physical features and culture is completely alien to you, and probably a load religious and superstition around that.
It’s not as clean cut as yeah if we submit we will be fine. You are risking your culture, religion, and your entire people on this unknown chance.
so its alright for someone to murder you if you dont accept their orders?
depends on the order, if someone commands me to fly or use telepathy, obviously its a dumb request.
But, if the order is something as simple as just saying you are a part of an empire, not that hard.
This isnt the best example but do you think nazis would spare the jews if they said nazis are great? No, right? When someone does not stop at murdering to gain power they arent rational as you are making them out to be.
entirely different btw. Ghenghis Khan DID spare ANYONE that would just agree to say they are apart of his empire. No exceptions. He did not see race, religion, or culture as a barrier unlike every other world leader.
How is genghis Khan comparable to mustache man???? I don't get what yall are saying
“Genghis Khan is known for his extreme brutality during conquests, which included mass killings and the systematic destruction of entire cities, such as Nishapur and Merv, where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered. His campaigns resulted in the deaths of millions and left a lasting impact on the regions he invaded.”
ts aint a hill worth dying on twin
Do you realise that the notsees made incredible advances in science and technology? Did that justify the genocide of eastern European Jews? I don't think so at all. It's the same with genghis, semantics aside.
You are comparing 12th century to the 20th century, which I don't think is fair first of all. Secondly, Genghis didn't target specific groups of people, only those who didn't submit. We can't really apply modern standards to historical figures 8 centuries ago
how the fuck is it not fair? a murder in 12th century is not the same as 20th century?
Because of morality, morals have changed over time. Murder was not seen as bad as it is today, we can't judge the 12th century with modern day morality
Would you say that genghis Khan had an effect on how The MongolZ logo looks today?
Yeah, let's forget the millions of people he genocided just to expand his empire, and the fact that bro probably 🍇'd thousands of women.
lol idk if ur rage baiting but if u aren’t here is one
(Go to section about “Rape Culture in War”)
There’s a reason why 16% of men trace their ancestry to him
https://www.remedialherstory.com/15-1200-1400-mongols.html#/
I will say tho that ur right in that he isn’t Hitler lmao, I just said that as a joke. Genghis lived in a different era than Hitler where the rules of war and society were different.
I assume most ppl are downvoting you not because Genghis Khan isn’t the best person, but because he isn’t an athlete in the traditional sense.
(Talking abt ur original post on that other thread)
As in more to the number or more explanation to it ? 16% of 3.5-4b is a metric crapton of people that stat sounds fake that means by virtue practically genghis would've had to procreate with hundreds millions of woman all over the world to gain that amount of numbers
He would only massacre a village or places if they did not cooperate and become allies. He had to set examples or else no one would respect them.
whilst im not fully educated on the history
i doubt he gave the choice to EVERY city
could be wrong tho
Well from the countless stories ive heard from my grandparents, and my friends grandparents, he gave everywhere he went a choice to either join them, or dont.
Genghis khan was a very open minded and inclusive person, it didnt matter if the people were a different religion, race, etc. he would ask every place, and if they declined, he would use them to scare other villages nearby into accepting.
Even though my heritage is full mongolian, i could be wrong about some of this since there are hundreds of different versions of the story
the truth prolly isnt as good as the postive stories or as bad as the bad ones
its rare for history to be black and white
100%, but saying someone is inherently evil just because he kills people that are trying to fight his army is crazy when other emperors have done the same if not worse, but they get idolized and genghis khan is seen on par with the mustache man.
History is not just black and white, humans aren't just inherently villains or monsters.
how is that a choice lmfao. someone says they'll unalive your whole family unless you do x thing, that's valid?
is joining them that hard? all they had to do was just not fight the army and just be a part of the empire.
Genghis didnt ask for much when conquering. he just wanted people to join his empire and live normally with some of the men joining the army. (maybe also a concubine or two)
then who do you believe wasnt an evil person that was powerful in history? dont say stupid shit like ghandi or some unknown person that only 1% of the population knows.
Gandhi was not powerful, he was loyal to british and postponed Indian independence by decades due to his non violence crap
being powerful does not justify being evil. Also its "Gandhi". I agree morals change over time and judging someone from centuries ago from todays social lens is not fair. However, justifying rape and murder by attributing it to power is one of the most retarded things to have as opinion. By your logic it must be fine to kill people if it benefits you because hey how can you be powerful without being evil and murdering
still havent given me an example. so no person in history was good or not evil.
Also, if we think about it from another perspective, Ghenghis Khan did more good than bad with
-Reducing the carbon emission by 10%
-Inventing (or popularizing, not too sure) paper currency
-Extending the silk road and managing it
-Was one of the first leaders to ever implement religious freedom (some countries still struggle with it nowadays)
-abolished nobility and only cared about talent
Obviously this does not excuse murder and rape, but compared to other global leaders (even now), he doesn't sound that bad.
nah this is a miss
he killed so many ppl in baghdad/east asia/etc...
so he's an awful person
buttt
his strategy and tactics were effective
But he did kinda advance humanity in terms of standardised stuff, like paper money, he was also probably a bad guy because of the harsh environment he grew up in, which required you to be ruthless.
Bro was nuking civilizations before America was a twinkle in it's father's eyes 💔
Mao Zedong clears
Edit: but yeah most of them are from last century only he might be the biggest from more than 500y ago maybe
He is just misuderstood and cold hearted like me, we don't feel emotions anymore....
Bro nearly a thousand years later the only way we could be in any way similar is if we're walking around murdering women or children who do not sleep with us? What kind of take is this the maths not mathing bro.
He was forced to become a monster through the stuff he suffered as a child and teenager
Unless specific women and children posed a threat , a lethal one to him I can't stand for that. Thats a choice he made again and again to grape maime and kill those who posed absolutely no threat to him I'll do on this hill. I understand the way ur nurtured can mean so much but I just can't stop for murder or grape sad reality.(aside Again this is not meant as hate towards GK I just can't find good reason for them)
killed a lot of people
fucked a lot of people
looked like he ate a lot of people as well
In 1221, after the death of Taghachar, the husband of Genghis Khan's daughter, the entire city of Nishapur was destroyed by the Mongols over the course of 10 days. Genghis Khan's daughter requested the death of every resident of the city as vengeance for her husband's death.
its cuz hes basically doing the same amount of killing as a german individual
and war crimes like the japs did to china in shanghai
But the norms were different back then, it was a lot harder to keep people loyal, so he had to do extremes to try to consolidate his power, just because he killed millions, doesn't mean he is the same as the Austrian individual.
Just realised bro said German individual, opinion rejected
what a stupid take. since you dont respect me and i have to set an example its fine to unalive or abuse your relatives?
Good, because those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it...
I thought I was talking to propredicter but ok, go on, what do you think
Why can't you hate someone that somewhat progressed civilization? Evil people can have positive qualities or be successful in certain aspects while still being evil or deserving of hatred. It's like saying you shouldn't hate a rapper that did terrible things just because he progressed the genre of rap further in its evolution.
I can't really hate him since it's a 2 sided argument, like I really don't like how he destroyed the house of wisdom and raped and killed millions, but his environment forced him to become a monster in a way, with the harsh conditions he was put in when growing up, he helped globalise and standardise stuff like paper money in his empire, which shows that he did make progress, with his system of meritocracy
Right so he was smart and innovated better ways to do things, but that doesn't erase the terrible things he did and condoned within his army. Plenty of bad people have done similarly good things in their lives, but those achievements don't change the morality in their actions.
Making progress does not absolve anything he did, and I feel like everyone should be able to agree on that
But I just said that he was forced to be this way by his environment, his actions are reflective of how brutal the 12th and 13th centuries were
Ivan the terrible is better
Look alive, crème de la Kremlin's arriving
And we have to treat the elderly with respect, right?
Also we have to treat the dead with respect, for they do not have a voice to defend themselves.
Isn't he the most prolific rapist in human history? Bro was putting up LeBron numbers when it came to sexual assault
Bro yall so dumb
Fall of bagdad: 1258
Genghis Khan died in 1217
The responsible for flattening bagdad was halegu khan; ruler of ikekhanate
Most of the conquest was lead for the of looting riches of middle east after the genshis khan died. His sons were far more brutal than him
Some very misinformed people already do
And anyways, I was only asking a question, not putting forward the idea that he's a good guy
asking that question implies that there could be a reasonable perspective where he is a good person
if you ask "oh is hitler really that bad?" youre implying that what he did wasnt obscenely terrible, which is so obviously not the case that it doesnt warrant the question in the first place
Who knows what I could've been implying, sure I could have been implying that there is a perspective where he is seen as a good person, and that does definitely exist, and that is on me, but with this post I wanted to 'inflame' a historical discussion on how Genghis is seen, and this post wasn't meant to be bait either.
bruh stop tryin to play dumb what if i said "was hitler all that bad"
like there is no world where i can ask that and not imply that you could at least somewhat justify his actions
How am I playing dumb???
Also that is not a comparison, I said something completely different to that
From what Ive read he seemed like a responsible ruler, so these numbers seem ridiculous like 2.4Million were killed in Nishapur is impossible. even killing 2million cattle would be a hell of a task and people won't just stand there like animals WILL JUST RUN AWAY, they CAN run. Plus tolui led an army of only 10k to 15k men there is no way 15k soldiers could slaughter 2 million people in day. If we're hating on tyrants then we should hate people like Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt too. I dont see people hating on them?
Nah there's are not enough for the level of deaths he caused; I see peope calling him great leader and what not
It's mainly because winners write history and they mainly focus on the part where Churchill 'stood alone' against hitler, not on Gallipoli, not on the Bengali famine
You cannot be saying that while having the Mongolian flag equipped
Mf cant have a random flag on im ngl I don't even know the history on this guy...
"he ordered the execution of every Tatar man and boy taller than a linchpin, and enslaved Tatar women for raping. This order was given as collective punishment for the fatal poisoning of Genghis Khan's father, Yesugei, for which the Mongols blamed the Tatars"
collective punishment - war crime
wartime rape - war crime
intentional genocide - war crime
this is a single order from him, no one cares about what the morality of the people was at the time it was happening, slavery wasnt "fine because everyone did it" there were people in his time and situation that did not go to the extents he did, he believed he was divinely chosen and used that to justify the horrific acts he committed, sure, alot of other people of that time committed horrific acts, that doesnt suddenly make him a good person, there is not justification for the things he did and there is no making up for those acts because he also believed in a meritocracy lmao, you can admit that someone did good things without painting someone who caused the deaths of an estimated 40 million people as "actually an alright guy", and keep in mind hes only in second partially because there were just less people around at the time and partially because mao was a legitimate idiot who accidently caused the worst famine to ever exist in his own country by accident.
I agree it wasn't fine for example, but it was more socially acceptable, which is what I'm trying to argue. I agree with all other points
this mf is the one who cant seem to accept what is right in front of the eyes, yet overlooks it
Wdym how stubborn my point was?
How was my point stubborn in any way
Btw it's ironic in hindsight, it looks like you haven't even read the thread, and yet you insult me even tho I made it and replied to most of the points.
Discord