4 ms·
I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by u
by elliotec 10y ago
I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by uniting the Silk Road, standardizing a writing system, and ran a meritocratic society. So yeah of course he could fix it, he's one of the most successful rulers of all time by all metrics.
Edit: Yeah, obviously he and his conquest killed a lot of people. And yeah, in this case it was a metric of success for him and his empire.
- astrodust 10y agoHe also murdered millions of peasants he saw no use for since rice farming was not on their list of priorities. When conquering China it was often the case that academics were the first on the chopping block since they were presumably the ones most likely to cause trouble. So yeah, he fixed the economy?
- adamsea 10y agoUhhhh what about the metric of most civilians slaughtered? Just sayin' .... which metrics here constitute "success"?
- ktRolster 10y agoI always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. Mainly because he is seen as a barbarian conqueror, so people understand me if I use that phrase. (whether he was or not is immaterial: though by modern standards, he was a barbarian conqueror and completely unethical)