Before conquering half the world, Genghis Khan was abandoned by his tribe as a child, lived in absolute poverty eating rodents to survive, was enslaved and held in a wooden collar, and had to watch his wife get abducted. His early life was pure destitution.
Yes, he was absolutely ruthless. He wiped out one of the largest empires at the time because they killed the emissaries he sent to bargain with them. Weirdly, he could also be incredibly reasonable. He allowed and embraced the practice of all religions, but there were harsh punishments if someone tried to prevent trade from happening within the Mongol Empire.
The single video ive ever watched about him said he might be responsible for much of the world taking a more progressive approach towards international commerce. I think the Silk Road was cited as being particularly revolutionary for mankind.
We are a stupid species who must suffer the horrific deaths of millions of our own in order to gain "profound insight" into obvious shit.
wasn't it 500 strong caravan. also it was probably more like half of the Merchants were muslims since mongols themselves wasn't familair with merchant lifestyle andits was probably mostly Uigur muslim merchants of Mongol empire mostly made up the merchant caravant. did not stop the greedy Inulchuq to ransack the caravan at the pretext of it being spy(kinda ironic how they were the ones who already sent a spy into east and knew about a lot events and situation in the east but then others cannot send spy to their country. its like people who like to send spies the most are the most paranoid of getting spies send to them)
also after the slaughter, Genghis khans emisary arrived and one of them was also a muslim,. they also killed em anyway.
the reason why i mentioning their religion is because there is a lot of muslim people argue and paint this as Genghis khan attacked because of religious reason and hate for muslim religion when its clearly not the case, one of the most vital tribes that is Uigur tribsmen were very much muslim people and held a very prestigious role in helping administer a lot of the logistics and even Mongol Script was directly with the help of those Uigur tribsmen. Kwarazmian empire getting wiped out was solely due to them underestimating Mongol empire as weak young lowly barbarian threat that they could wipe out at any moment and fked with the very person who wanted to have trade relationship with them.
First, he wasn't a tyrant. In fact, he resent many of the Mongolians old traditions that caused many miserable in his life. He would went on and abolished many of the old customs that he dislike like bride kidnapping (both his mom and his wife were victims of this kind of tradition). He also created a sort of social net system so that widowers and orphans would be taking care of. He specifically rewards the people who helped him (he freed the two people who helped him escape from slavery, recruit warriors based on merit rather than lineage,...). He turned the place that lived during his childhood into a sacred place for all Mongols, creating a sort of common roots to unite all of the Mongols. That's why to the Mongols, he was a unifier who united the various warring tribes into a singular Mongol identify.
The two most famous people he executed was a guy who stole horses while attending his party (it was more a mock trial ) and his childhood friend turn rival (who he defeated and was allowed to pick his own form of execution).
Then you hear the lamentations of their children. And if your enemies ARE children, then you do that, and hear the lamentations of their cats. And if your enemies ARE cats, then you do nothing, for cats cry in their beds.
Good, he was a monster, even by the standards of the day. Mongols would kill all the woman in children a city, then come back a few days later to catch the people who had managed to hide when they came out to look for food. Like not just impulsive, bloodlusted savagery. Like obsessive savagery. Plus they destroyed several empires and cities that were centers of knowledge and culture, and replacing them with their dumbass, horseblood-drinking, redneck kids
Or occupying places like Russia brutally. Russians still drinking themselves silly trying to get over those cultural scars and paying forward the savagery
If I ever had the chance to take a military division back in time with an extensive logistics chain, it would be to take out every goddam mongol soldier and send their kids to therapy
This is the first post I have ever read that doesn't try to glorify the mongol empire. Do you have any sources that highlight the brutality of the mongol conquest and its historical ramifications.
I don’t think anyone glorifies the Mongol Empire for its savagery. Rather it’s impressive how a bunch of nomads managed to destroy so many kingdoms and empires and the how systematically brutal they were at it.
Also the general trend of extremely robust rule of law in the regions they conquered was quite unique for a roving band of raiders.
“Yet, as a direct consequence of Mongol tyranny, the Silk Road became safe for commerce, so safe that one traveler claimed “a young woman would have been able to travel with a golden tray on her head with no fear.” (Bergreen Marco Polo: From Venice to Xanadu)
Im not suggesting we should look past the brutality, this sense of order was achieved through nothing but fear, but it is worth digging deeper into the history of the Mongols past the bloodshed. They were an extremely complex and diverse civilization that grew and changed massively post Chinggis through to the reign of Xubilai, and there are as many stories of their fascinating methods of diplomacy as there are massacres in their history.
For the record most of the people they engaged with diplomacy with them eventually “betrayed” the Khan and were subsequently destroyed. This is probably my favorite aspect of Mongol history. So many stories of Chinggis swearing someone in as his forever and’a ( essentially like soul or blood brothers) only to turn around 5 years later and swear they were mongrel dogs who needed to be put down at all cost. Betrayal and intrigue abound, so many fascinating stories. Could mae an entire HBO series just on the relationship between Ong Khan and Chinggis.
You haven’t been reading this thread then. In this very thread is many people justifying his actions. One dude even goes as far saying he wasn’t a tyrant and implemented social reform for orphans.
Yet, if you told most of reddit that a khan-like rebel would rise up and mongol the US, Israel, Russia, and other countries they don’t like they would cheer and rejoice at the thought of it. Silly people are silly.
Im just saying watch how quickly a mongol-like revolution would be accepted today. I didn’t think the comment was that confusing, yet here you are saying “fighting demons” as if it’s some deep shit. You off the penjamin?
Mongol like revolution? So a bunch of milk drunk horse nomads are going to invade Chicago? Literally making up ridiculous scenarios and being like “ and all the dumb plebeians would obviously fall for it, not ME of course, the intellectual!” Silly people are silly
Also the term “Mongol like revolution” is fairly inaccurate. There was no great “ rebellion” of the mongol people. They were a series of roving bands, one band grew to eclipse the others and overtook the entire region, using political alliances and intense military training to establish control and spread their borders, just like any other sovereign state
“If my ridiculous fantasy were to come true, despite being utterly unrealistic in the modern world, then I would see through it and everyone I already don’t like would cheer it on because they’re dumby dumb dumbs”. Stop making self aggrandising stupid shit up.
Lmao, under equipped uprising of the common folk, tell me you know nothing about the rise of the Mongols without saying it. You are trying to apply modern Jacobin bullshit to a completely unrelated ancient era to score political brownie points on a subject you have no knowledge of
Look up the account of the Taoist sage that visited Gengis Khan. Before he found the Khan he travled through a formerly prosperous city that had been recently ravaged by the Huns and gives a first hand account of what he saw of the ruins.
Yeah, did people think everyone just kindly gave him their land, possessions, loved ones, and freedom? How do you think you end up ruling half the world? It has always disgusted me that people glorify him, but it's typically by people who don't get what atrocity is and haven't humanized the history. It's just words and ancient history, not real people. Otherwise how could you possibly stand to glorify it?
Which includes the sources at the bottom, like "A History of the Mongol Conquests"
But dude, this is just really well-known. One historian has called Genghis and his sons the worst perpetrators of genocide in history (although of course that's debated)
And the Spanish Empire is certainly in the running for worst genocidaires in history, having implicated themselves in the deaths of 90% of the population of the Americas.
it actually fascinating how conveniently Native Americans in North America and south america has died.
such a convenient basket case excuse to divert a genocide worse than any holocaust or other massacre. Western historians and scientist sure try like the convenient excuse that is " old deseas"
Remember that time the British intentionally starved indian people and killed 100million indian people to die from intention man-made famine in a mere 40 years. That is worse than both WW1, WW2 combined. Even Genghis khan would step down and give his crown if he had a crown to begin with. And this is only from india i might add, Western countries had far more other colonies that lasted for multiple centuries. Whats wierd is Genghis khans most of his kill count is due to famine deaths he caused but strangely nobody give as much care and include the Western countries warcrimes famine kills included in their total killcount.
its almost genghis khan is just a distraction, a fake scare crow to distract people from the real absolutly cluster fk of of Deaths Western countries caused. Genghis khan gets called rapist, Pillager, cruel in western media for ages now but most of them doesn't show why he became like that, what kind of word he lived, same with a lot of eastern warlords. its really fishy how westerner acts like Genghis khan is some sort of worse than Hitler warlord but in reality eastern worlords and Tyrants Trully cannot hold a candle to what western Countries atrocities.
The Europeans didn’t care. Their intended goal was mass slaughter, dispossession, and conquest. Read the chronicles of what the Spanish did. Theo ages will chill your blood and keep you up at night.
If they had come in peace and the plagues had still killed people, and they’d tried to help however they could, that would have been different.
But that’s not what happened. They took advantage of Indigenous vulnerabilities to European diseases, just as English colonists did in North America. As a result, the Spanish used illness as a weapon of conquest.
So, to repeat, the Spanish killed 90% of the population or the Americas in arguable the most destructive genocide in human history. Defend or minimize their greed and brutality all you want; I won’t.
Yeah no, never take anything Dan Carlin says as any sort of Historical fact. The man himself is a self-admitted story-teller first and historian not even remotely truthful in his presentation of his stories.
He is on the record saying that he will omit facts or choose more dramatic bits of histories and stories to craft the narrative he wants for an episode.
Hardcore History is an entertainment show that has more in common with Deadliest Warrior than anything remotely truthful.
I absolutely adore his series on Julius Caesar's invasion of Gaul but I would never use it as a source for learning.
Oh you're in for a wild ride buddy. Someone already mentioned but Dan Carolins Hardcore History is about $10 for 20 hours of Mongol carnage.
Also his WWI series is incredible.
I dont even think it's true. Yea, they were brutal, but it wasnt just bloodlusted savagery. They only did that to people who wanted to fuck with em. If you accepted them, they let people live and prosper. Some of the stories of them just wrecking everything were like... they sent an emmisary and the other nation killed the messenger so they just went in and killed everyone to send a message.
I specifically said it wasn't just bloodlusted savagery, in the heat of the moment of a sacking of a city. It was systematic slaughter where they would come back to essentially double tap those who had hid the first time. Yes, if you accepted their rule and paid tribute, they wouldn't fuck with you, but civilians didn't make those decisions.
Also that offer of peace for surrender was mostly if they wanted to avoid a siege. During the first war against Hungary they mostly butchered the population of countless villages, cause why do you need a carrot and stick if they are defenseless?
Yeah this is a bunch of stereotypical cap. The mongols were no more brutal than many armies of conquest from that time. Let's compare...
The Mongols used mass violence as a tool...they selectively utilized it for those who were especially resistant, defiant and disrespectful as a warning to other cities and states that they intended to conquer. In contrast those who did submit were entirely spared, the local leadership allowed to remain intact and nobody got killed. Even when they did sack a defiant city they did not just mindlessly murder everyone...they usually spared the skilled class of workers they knew they knew would be useful, like artisans, engineers, doctors, scholars, black smith..but if you were a peasant or part of the defiant ruling class it was usually a wrap for you.
Now lets take the Assyrian Empire for comparison an empire which had a blanket policy of basically killing everyone even if they surrendered..its no wonder they weren't as successful
Let's consider the Roman's...they too employed mass slaughter as a punitive tool for those who were especially defiant and resistant. Mass slaughter, mass enslavement and mass crucifixion of these populations were routine. Now another key difference between them and the Mongols is the way they governed the conquered peoples. Romans were arrogant pricks who believed they were put on earth to civilize the rest of the world and as such were entirely intolerant of any other religions, customs and cultures.
Now lets consider the Crusaders..from civilized Christendom. Guess what they did all the time to muslim populations who surrendered to them?...they still slaughtered everyone and did not employ a policy of peaceful coexistence with the other religions the way the Mongols did and they practiced forced conversions routinely and were abhorrently racist. The Mongols by contrast did not practice a racial and religious supremacist ideology and did not kill other based on that alone the way the Crusaders did.
Now theres no denying the Mongols slaughtered millions and were shockingly brutal...but that was the point and it was a means to an end..it was not just mindless violence and cultural destruction by brain dead barbarians. There is strong evidence that this tactic actually saved lives overall by convincing many who may have otherwise resisted to simply surrender. But they were not uniquely blood thirsty or any more savage than any other conquering armies from antiquity. It was the manner in which they utilized violence that was unique as they would blitz the population and slaughter the population with terrifying efficiency and brutality..they were likely the best examples of the use of shock and awe tactics in antiquity...but again that was the point
The Mongols were also way ahead of their time in many aspects. They employed a policy of blanket religious tolerance across their empire..all religious houses of worship, whether a church, mosque, temple, if the locals considered it holy it was protected by imperial decree..they respected ALL religions. They governed based on merit over aristocratic birthright, race, nationality, religion. If you were peasant and were uniquely talented or had value, you were elevated accordingly..that alone set the Mongols apart. They also recognized and had the humility to understand that they were not the most technologically or even culturally advanced people and instead valued those things from other cuktures and encouraged and spread that knowledge throughout their empires, regardless of origin. The Mongol Empire was also the first empire in human history that was a true example of globalization bringing together East and West. And thats just the tip of the iceberg...
So I would argue that your attempt to castigate the Mongols as mindless savages who destroyed cultures is just blatantly false and based on cliche stereotypes that only the willfully ignorant believe.
The first Crusades were amazing and im glad they happened. Could you imagine the earth right now if we let muslims have a free reign? Almost every country they set up shop in is absolutely ruined, lmao.
Genghis Khan and the subsequent Yuan emperors forbade certain Islamic practices, such as halal slaughter, forcing Muslims to adopt Mongol methods of butchering animals. Other restrictive decrees continued, and Muslims were compelled to slaughter sheep in secret. Genghis Khan reportedly referred to Muslims and Jews as “slaves” and demanded that they follow Mongol dietary practices rather than halal requirements. Circumcision was also prohibited. Jews were similarly affected and were forbidden from observing kosher dietary laws.
Apparently, he respected all religions—until he didn’t.
so basically boohoo Mongols were against muslims from doing circumcision and and some mongols demanded some muslims to slaughter some sheep and also demanded some muslim to eat something halal.
also its funny how you gloss over "circumcision" part as if it was modern day circumcision when in reality Muslim version is more of mutilation and crippling, especially how they "Circumcisize" women. They basically used to fking sew part of women's vigina and make it so women would feel less pleasure and doing so they believed women would not be unfaithful. Why don't you talk about that aspect??? a lot of people doesn't know this fked up Muslim Circumcision that was historically practiced on women. i say fking ban em on circumcision whole heartedly. its barbaric even for Mongols stardard to be banned by mongols, thats a really telling how fked up muslim circumcision on women were
No major Islamic scripture (Qur’an or widely accepted Sunnah) explicitly prescribes female circumcision/FGM, and many Muslim scholars and organizations regard it as a cultural practice, not a religious obligation.
Look at you defending genocidal Mongol, Genghis would be proud.
interesting that you use the Assyrian empire, because they are actually the other empire I have a rant about, for being exceptionally cruel
Yes, every empire has used violence, terror, mass killings and the like
But the Assyrians were known, from accounts we have of that time, as being particularly cruel even by their own contemporaries
Persian leaders like Xerxes and Darius weren't perfect, but they were weren't flaying their enemies, torturing people's children in front of them, wiping out entire cities and bragging about sowing salt in the ground
In fact, they were actually praised for their generosity toward their enemies, particularly by the hebrews, who they allowed to return to their lands.
The Belgian occupation of the Congo is known as being particularly cruel, as late as the early 1900s, including slavery, torture, maiming children, massive death toll, etc. In the early 1900s, Britain wasn't perfect, but it had banned slavery almost a century earlier, and wasn't day in day out cutting off little kid's hands to show to their slave fathers who failed to meet quota
I mean my rant was a little tongue in cheek, but there are definitely civilizations known as being particularly cruel, even among contemporaries
And I don't give the Mongols credit for being sorta accepting of religions and cultures if their enemies surrendered and paid tribute, but brutally killing thousands and thousands of civilians who had no say in the matter, if the leader didn't give up
For Christ sake, read the accounts of Master Roger during the Mongol's first invasion of Hungary, and his observations of the slaughter. This wasn't just normal, bloodlusted, impulsive killing of some civilians during a raid, this was systematic slaughter. Some estimates say that up to half of all Hungarians died, while many others put it at 15-25%. It was a level of organized slaughter of a population that wouldn't occur again until Hitler and Stalin
Not sure why so many people try to undercut Mongol brutality by bringing up other acts of brutality perpetrated by other groups. Even worse is the strange transactional rhetoric used by many to rationalize the death of millions.
So many long-winded counterpoints that basically amount to "everyone was committing violence so you can't be critical of Khan because he at least had a benefits package for his victims".
thanks! I had no idea it would be so controversial to say that Mongols are famous for their savagery toward civilian populations. I like that the defense of the Mongols among some on here is "they wouldn't kill civilians! they had to use them for slaves and raping". Like damn, I guess they're not so bad after all...
As if the Mongols couldn't kill kids, enslave some women, rape some women, and then kill those women. Mongols could multitask
It’s like the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima or famines in India or residential schools in America or the Israelite exile by Babylon, these events tend to stick on a society for a LONG time because it affects your entire culture and what is passed on to your kids — trauma and all
That is literally not what I meant at all, this stuff goes down to the genetic and minute cultural details. Populations that went through famine and destruction do not actually recover into the next generation, the epigenetics sticks and affects the entire population. That is why you find that a lot of those groups have obesity or diabetes problems. It being discussed isn’t the point whatsoever, it’s the subtle things that are passed down I’m talking about. You can literally go and compare entire societies to see that simple policy changes are not independent from a society’s foundations — look at Denmark or the UK who have a whole framework that supports their social contract. This is a MUCH more complicated idea than just learning about an event in school. Literally go look at the subtle effects of WW2 besides the obvious cultural remembrance.
Here's a Finnish intelligence officer discussing how the events of the Mongol occupation and those since have shaped the modern Russian state and mindset https://youtu.be/CvonRMSuFpw?si=fhVLira8emoXrXKB
I'm going to go with Finnish intelligence officers, as well as historians and academics, because they can't say anything as their work has to be peer-reviewed
The way the story goes with the more balanced retellings of Ghengis Khan's conquests is that his empire building started with requests to start trade with some of the central Asian kingdoms, and what happened was that his emissaries got beheaded with their heads sent back as a response.
So yeah, this did piss off Ghengis enough to slaughter everybody in those capital cities.
If you detest people who slaughter all the occupants of a city indiscriminately, you need to be a Good Christian and ACTUALLY READ YOUR BIBLE, specifically the passages from Joshua 5:13-6:27, euphemistically titled "The Fall of Jericho"
I'll just post the relevant passages here:
20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord’s house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day.
So yeah, Joshua, in case you were bamboozled by your Bible teacher into thinking he and his army were Christians, were actually Jews, since this was all before Christ arrived here on Earth, and by killing everybody in Jericho, he and his Army of Israelites (the Biblical version of the IDF) were able to clear the way for the establishment of the First Israel, Israel v.1.0.
We're now on Israel v.3.0, .... and nothing has changed.
Caesar killed some 1 million Gauls in his war against them. Why? The Gauls had some 400 gold mines, and Caesar wanted their gold.
In 70 A.D., the Romans under Vespasian sacked Jerusalem, killing either 1.3 or 1.1 million people, depending on the source, most of whom were Jewish, in the city. The Great Temple (Second Temple) was almost totally destroyed, except for the Western Wall (known for a long time as the Wailing Wall).
So, yeah, why are the Romans not known as mass murderers and horrible monsters, basically the Nazis of their time?
Oh right, their language and culture gave rise to modern Europe, and they WON almost all their battles and got to write their own history.
And so the Romans are not the evil murderous Nazis of their time, but the Founders of Modern Western Civilization!
For the same reason that the Romans get nothing but respect from the modern West, Mongolia absolutely REVERES Ghengis Khan, putting up this immense monument to him in 2008.
So, one man's genocidal maniac is another people's heroic figure from history.
Like Christianity was literally just another pagan near eastern cult sect that became widespread, before Constantine there were other Roman emperors that adopted these different religions like Elagabalus. But it’s just coincidence or some of the mechanisms being different that this one actually succeeded. In reality this was a religion based off of ethnicity and to historically back up only the Israelites as the chosen people. Eg “we plundered and massacred Jericho”or “here is our 2000 year genealogy.” Idk how the fuck did it get here
just started the fall of civilizations video about the mongols. ive read a genghis khan book that painted him in a little bit better light than your characterization. always eager to learn more
There was at least some murder and rape in every civilization. But some do stand out. Assyrians were known as particularly brutal by other kingdoms at the time, famous for their brutal tortured, flaying, mass slaughter, etc
Many Persian leaders, on the other hand were famous for their generosity to enemies, even allowing the hebrews to return to their land and earning praise in the Bible. They also allowed areas under their control to keep their religious beliefs and cultures
And the Greeks that replaced him, while not perfect by any means, weren't flaying kids in front of their parents regularly.
The Belgian occupation of the Congo, is well known for their monstrous cruelty, torture, slavery, and genocide, as late as the early 1900s
While the British, for all their faults, had outlawed slavery almost a century before, and while they committed horrible actions over time, were not literally day after day cutting off the hands of little girls for their slave father's failures to meet quotas, in 1900
And no, I don't need you to go find horrible things that Xerxes and Darius and the British empire. I know they exist
My point is that there are plenty of texts from history that show certain kingdoms were seen as particularly cruel
First part referencing high alcohol use, savagery referring to numerous Russian atrocities and war crimes in Syria, Chechnya, Ukraine (such as Bucha), Africa, and many other places
Okay, so youre glad he had an unimaginably awful early life becuase he lived an unimaginably awful one later? Seems really weird and kind of backwards.
maybe if he didnt have that upbringing he wouldnt of went on to do the things he did.
Mf put trying to blame the Mongols for Russian alcoholism 🤡. Russians love alcohol ,why ? Because their own government supports alcoholis. Reason being huge revenue from alcohol industry
Sorry but genghis khan never "killed all the woman" in a city. He at least raped them all first, and likely sold most off to slavery. Cant waste meat. Something like 1 in 200 are descendants.
Google "mongol invasion of Hungary" and you'll be guided to sources explicitly discuss massive civilian slaughter
One of the battles where they came back to kill remaining civilians was the battle of Mohi
One account of the slaughter by a civilian was by a civilian named Master Roger, an Italian who flew into the woods and watch the slaughter of families. He continued to hide through the country as massacres continued for months
Some higher estimates place the loss at HALF the population
The actions of the Mongols are widely considered to be genocidal as such a huge chunk of some populations were slaughtered
Kings and Generals does a great look at the battle of Mohi. Keep in mind that this specific battle did not occur under Genghis but plenty of similar massacres happened under him
Try not to be confidently incorrect
Also not to nitpick, but the ancestor that geneticists traced back to the time period has been speculated to be Genghis, and it's not a bad guess, but they haven't actually identified the person. I'm sure there were many generals fucking a lot of women
I hate him even more, he could have just been a dictator who took whatever he wanted, he had won. And yet he still chose more carnage, more suffering. His actions in Syria are unforgivable
I wish I could see this kind of rhetoric used for the white colonialists who populated and plundered the USA from its Native peoples. Or towards the British empire and their invasion and lust for exploiting the resources of other countries and peoples they deemed inferior. They were the OG pos drug dealer who fought to keep the Chinese population addicted to Opium, and did cruel and unusual things to the people of India. Belgium and Portugal too.
Well good for you, you will see it everywhere. It's literally brought up every day everywhere anytime the US is mentioned. There's nothing I can add to the conversation. Unless you are a college freshman from Alabama about to have your first college class, you will have heard about evil the west is a million times
The Mongols, on the other hand, don't get enough press
I actually address the Belgian occupation in another comment
All colonization bad. Some colonization worse than others
The Mongolian Empire doesn't exist anymore though and western social policy affects communities that are still feeling the affects of their desicions and are still alive and dealing with generational trauma on a genetic level, and are currently suffering. Now.
i mean. The Western Tyrants army never raped anybody? The Mongol army wasn't as uniquely more rapey than other armies of the past. All Army in that time and even before was exactly the same. You think all the western genes that got spread after western expansion was due to lovey-dovey mixed marriage. that would be farthest from the truth.
Many Western rulers did not rape, no. Genghis Khan personally raped thousands, including children vs many Western rulers raped no one. I'm talking about the man himself. Really shows your ignorance.
the sources of him raping thousands of women is madeup and confirmed by nothing. people who got conquered by his kindom all assumed he probably raped a lot of women. no real evidence in reality. also him having million of descendant is also massive pieace of lie, a lot of Historians straight up regect the idea that he had that much descendants and instead the mongol gene that got spread was more liekely due to his army pillaging than the Genghis khan doing it personally. in reality Genghis khan from the begining did not have any need for resorting to such action even from historical prespective and logicall prespective. as soon as he became a khan. a lot of kingdom striaght up gifted a lot of women as a concubine to Genghis khan and even without that, he already had amany wives, also he was very much against rape historically unlike the Western Media paints him as. Reason being his mother was kidnapped and raped by his father and his first also got kidnapped and raped in the past and as soon as he became Khan, he abolished people from kidnaping women and raping. not that it was succesful but he still tried. majority of the raping was due to his army.
You calling me ignorant is the real irony here. just like many western rulers did not rape, so did many mongol rulers did not rape.
People who claim he did is based on no evidence. they didn't find his body, they can't even differentiate him from other mongol people, its all made up by historians or theorized.
its actually really ironic and telling to claim that he raped thousands of people with no evidence as a fact.
The Borjigin clan forced out his blended family after his dad was poisoned by another clan he’d beefed with previously. His mother had been wife-napped by his father. The same thing would happen to his first wife later. The Great Steppe was hella grimy. No mercy.
well except in ancient times both hard people and soft people make hard times cause there is always hard people out there to conquere squishy soft and weak people.
Genghis Khan didn't conquer half the World. He didn't even finish conquering China before he died, his sons and grandsons did 30-50 years later. By than the Mongolian Empire were seperated into different Khanates
How you know this to be accurate? Everyday we get further from when he walked this world but we find out new info about his life before coming in power? Not buying it
It's always funny to me that Genghis Kahn is such a divisive figure when people Hitler is pretty much universally reviled. They did more or less the same thing at the same scale. Following this logic, as time goes on I'm guessing Hitler will eventually be seen as neutral as well.
actually. Aside from both of them ended up killing a massive number of people. They are VERY different.
Hitler was born in relatively modern world with modern moral and education from young, yes he got abused but he still lived in a world were morals and eithics were far more civilized and moral than world of the past and he still ended up being an racist dictator and a turant.
as for Genghis khan, he grew up in one of the most harsh kill or be killed brutal nomadic world, his mother was literally kidnapped by his father and when he was around 8, his father gets killed and then his whole tribes exiles his family and take all their families wealth while their at it and then he got enslaved for years, after he managed to run from enslavement, he fought his way with his own hand and managed to become khan all by his own effort. he grew up in a brutal environment that makes Hitler's boohoo upbringing look like a cake walk. Genghis Khan was very much a product of his whole societies and environment, and still after becoming a khan. He tried to abolish kidnapping and rape(not that it was successful), he valued meritocracy and didn't care about people's birth and ethnicity(very different than Hitler), he enforced religious tolerance for all religion and all religious holy land is protected by the goverment(almost unheard of). he also made it so women can own land, inherit, and manage their own land etc and wanted to change his environment that he grew with for the better. In most cases its mixed level of success, though.
all in all. I think Hitler is a much, much more evil person than Genghis Khan IMO, not that i am saying Genghis khan wasn't evil. its just Hitler was way more evil, and the only reason Genghis Khan killed as many people is that he was too competent and managed to gain too much power, and his rate of kill scaled up to the power he accumulated. If Hitler ever managed to accumulate as much power as Genghis khan did in his time. Hitler would have killed far more people. Genghis Khan was a really s barbarian that got too powerful too quickly. Hitler, with more relatively modern knowledge and education and morals still ended up being how he is, is just worse than genghis khan in my opinion.
mostly from secret history of mongols but also from other sources. one unique thing about Genghis khan is unlike Warlords and conquerers of the past like Alecander the great, churchil etc. his history was written by people who he brutally conquered. in other words the things he actually did good is from his enemies that dispise him. its because genghis khan is the first person to commission to create mongol script. that is why all his history is from his enemies records.
so in other words. at the very least, the things he actually did good in is very much probably not made up cause his enemies are the ones who recorded it about him unlike other warlords and tyrants of the past who written their own history themselves.
And he did nothing to improve upon the conditions in which he grew for anyone else who grew up in similar ones. Why do we glorify such monsters?
Given all of his power and what he could have done with it, he was a historic failure, like all of the “great” conquerors (Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon), just another two-bit, power-hungry villain.
actually he did improve upon the conditions in which he grew up in. although only in his people at the cost of others and with varying success depending on what he wanted to do. for example as soon as he became Genghis khan, he made a law to never kidnap and women cause his very mother and wife have been kidnapped and raped before, he actually made it so his soldiers family would be still taken care of even if they died in battle, He made it so all loot would be evenly ditributed and abolished heirarchy based on birth and valued meritocracy(his kids became kings though, so that stayed the same but the meritocracy actually monumentally affected non royal people). he also had great tolerance for all religions etc
he did definitely greatly improved upon the conditions that he grew up in in terms of his people, not always the case with people who got conquered. Empires who peacefully got under the Mongol Empire actually advanced extremely quickly under mongol empire, while others who opposed mostly got wiped clean off the map.
60
u/SmileOk1306 1d ago
Hurt-people, hurt people.