5 ms·

He was a plunderer, I see no need to lionize and romanticize him.

by acdjuiamadfn 9y ago

davidreiss 9y ago
He was a plunderer but he also started something that changed the world.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  The level of destruction of people and centres of culture puts any praise of him beyond the pale. His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv
  - Lokran 9y ago
    Franklin D. Roosevelt destroyed the largest city in all of Asia.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      How does that make it okay? Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately. It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
      - Lokran 9y ago
        It doesn't, I was just pointing out that if atrocious military actions means that you can't say anything good about a person there are a lot of leaders included in that. >Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Merv has surrendered, but the war wasn't over. It wasn't just mindless killing, it was for a military objective. >Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately. You don't target enemy military assets with fire bombings. >It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army. The motivation for it wasn't to kill civilians, it was always for military reasons.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Tokyo bombings killed around 200,000 people, a small fraction of the 6 million who lived there. Genghis Khan would have had his soldiers kill most, if not all of the 6 million.
      - Lokran 9y ago
        You mean like Roosevelt had his soliders kill most, if not all citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The objective of the two things is remarkably similar by the way - to demonstrate your might and make the enemy surrender out of fear.
        valuearb 9y ago
        Roosevelt protected Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were barely touched while he was president. Truman dropped nuclear bombs on both cities, and the vast majority of their citizens survived the bombings.
  - wahern 9y ago
    I'm skeptical of this. "To each [Mongol soldier] was allotted the execution of three or four hundred Persians. So many had been killed by nightfall that the mountains became hillocks, and the plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty." Some historians believe that over one million people died in the aftermath of the city's capture, including hundreds of thousands of refugees from elsewhere, making it one of the most bloody captures of a city in world history. Really? Each soldier slaughtered hundreds of people within a matter of days or, at most, weeks? And the people never fled en masse, unlike the refugees who had fled before them? Excavations revealed drastic rebuilding of the city's fortifications in the aftermath, but the prosperity of the city had passed. Who would have been around to rebuild the city? I don't doubt the Mongols slaughtered large numbers of people or that they razed entire cities, but IMNSHO stories like the above are obviously myths. If you look at the basic mechanics of well-documented atrocities at that scale--Rwandan Genocide, Holocaust, Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, Great Chinese Famine, etc--you'll see some combination of long time periods, very modern technology, and a sophisticated socio-political apparatus leveraged for population control. Without some mix of these things, you have no hope of killing enough people before they literally run for the hills and escape your reach.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      I'm also skeptical of the account. A 20,000 man army times 400 people would mean 8,000,000 people, which is obviously impossible.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      It's commonly reported that Mongol soldiers were tasked with slaughtering the local population after taking a defended city. How many each killed and how many were killed in total can be debated. For example, they also did this to Beijing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhongdu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhongdu
      - davidreiss 9y ago
  - davidreiss 9y ago
    > The level of destruction of people and centres of culture puts any praise of him beyond the pale. I disagree. If that was the case, then no man would be praiseworthy. > His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia: No he didn't and no it wasn't anything near the most important city in western asia. Go read about the supposed destruction of the cities and see how absurd it is. Certainly the status of Merv declined as the mongols diverted trade routes to suit them but that's empire. Also, west asia has lots of great and important cities. I wouldn't go around complaining Mery was the most important cities in west asia when cities like jerusalem, baghdad and a bunch more exist in west asia.
Lokran 9y ago
What he was was a military man of his time and place, much like Alexander the Great, George Washington, Belisarius, Winston Churchill or Douglas MacArthur.
- hobarrera 9y ago
  Alexander the Great is far from being idolized the way Genghis Khan is being idolized in this article. As for the rest of that list, I don't recall any of them having been responsible for massacring and plundering almost an entire continent. And non of them (except Washington in the US) are held at high esteem at all.

He was a plunderer, I see no need to lionize and romanticize him.

davidreiss 9y ago

He was a plunderer but he also started something that changed the world.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
The level of destruction of people and centres of culture puts any praise of him beyond the pale. His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv
- Lokran 9y ago
  Franklin D. Roosevelt destroyed the largest city in all of Asia.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    How does that make it okay? Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately. It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army.
    - Lokran 9y ago
      It doesn't, I was just pointing out that if atrocious military actions means that you can't say anything good about a person there are a lot of leaders included in that. >Anyway, this was different. Merv had surrendered. FDR was bombing cities that were still participating in a war against the Allies. Merv has surrendered, but the war wasn't over. It wasn't just mindless killing, it was for a military objective. >Another factor that makes these incomparable is that the Mongol army killed all these people with swords and spears, not unguided bombs. That means the civilians were killed deliberately. You don't target enemy military assets with fire bombings. >It may be small comfort for the civilians killed by bombing runs during WW2 that they were collateral damage, but the intention to kill civilians tells us something about the moral character of the Mongol army. The motivation for it wasn't to kill civilians, it was always for military reasons.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Tokyo bombings killed around 200,000 people, a small fraction of the 6 million who lived there. Genghis Khan would have had his soldiers kill most, if not all of the 6 million.
    - Lokran 9y ago
      You mean like Roosevelt had his soliders kill most, if not all citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The objective of the two things is remarkably similar by the way - to demonstrate your might and make the enemy surrender out of fear.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        Roosevelt protected Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were barely touched while he was president. Truman dropped nuclear bombs on both cities, and the vast majority of their citizens survived the bombings.
- wahern 9y ago
  I'm skeptical of this. "To each [Mongol soldier] was allotted the execution of three or four hundred Persians. So many had been killed by nightfall that the mountains became hillocks, and the plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty." Some historians believe that over one million people died in the aftermath of the city's capture, including hundreds of thousands of refugees from elsewhere, making it one of the most bloody captures of a city in world history. Really? Each soldier slaughtered hundreds of people within a matter of days or, at most, weeks? And the people never fled en masse, unlike the refugees who had fled before them? Excavations revealed drastic rebuilding of the city's fortifications in the aftermath, but the prosperity of the city had passed. Who would have been around to rebuild the city? I don't doubt the Mongols slaughtered large numbers of people or that they razed entire cities, but IMNSHO stories like the above are obviously myths. If you look at the basic mechanics of well-documented atrocities at that scale--Rwandan Genocide, Holocaust, Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, Great Chinese Famine, etc--you'll see some combination of long time periods, very modern technology, and a sophisticated socio-political apparatus leveraged for population control. Without some mix of these things, you have no hope of killing enough people before they literally run for the hills and escape your reach.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    I'm also skeptical of the account. A 20,000 man army times 400 people would mean 8,000,000 people, which is obviously impossible.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    It's commonly reported that Mongol soldiers were tasked with slaughtering the local population after taking a defended city. How many each killed and how many were killed in total can be debated. For example, they also did this to Beijing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhongdu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhongdu
    - davidreiss 9y ago
- davidreiss 9y ago
  > The level of destruction of people and centres of culture puts any praise of him beyond the pale. I disagree. If that was the case, then no man would be praiseworthy. > His army destroyed what was perhaps the most important city in Western Asia: No he didn't and no it wasn't anything near the most important city in western asia. Go read about the supposed destruction of the cities and see how absurd it is. Certainly the status of Merv declined as the mongols diverted trade routes to suit them but that's empire. Also, west asia has lots of great and important cities. I wouldn't go around complaining Mery was the most important cities in west asia when cities like jerusalem, baghdad and a bunch more exist in west asia.

Lokran 9y ago

What he was was a military man of his time and place, much like Alexander the Great, George Washington, Belisarius, Winston Churchill or Douglas MacArthur.

hobarrera 9y ago
Alexander the Great is far from being idolized the way Genghis Khan is being idolized in this article. As for the rest of that list, I don't recall any of them having been responsible for massacring and plundering almost an entire continent. And non of them (except Washington in the US) are held at high esteem at all.