4 ms·

This theory doesn't hold up against the test of time. We used to have tyrant monarchs - Genghis Khan would roam the steppe and cutting people's heads off and t

by gretch 6y ago

This theory doesn't hold up against the test of time. We used to have tyrant monarchs - Genghis Khan would roam the steppe and cutting people's heads off and that would be normal every day life. There are still bad things today, but more people have more rights and a higher quality of life.

e15ctr0n 6y ago
> Genghis Khan Genghis Khan was neither a tyrant nor a monarch, nor was cutting off heads a part of his everyday life. He actually got more Mongol people more rights and a higher quality of life. I would request you to read a detailed and accurate account of his life by a historian. For example, Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy by Frank McLynn https://amzn.com/B00X2ZW5ZI https://amzn.com/B00X2ZW5ZI
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Do you find the following inaccurate or biased, and if so, for the uninformed, briefly why? "Campaigns initiated in his lifetime include those against the Qara Khitai, Khwarezmia, and the Western Xia and Jin dynasties, and raids into Medieval Georgia, the Kievan Rus', and Volga Bulgaria. These campaigns were often accompanied by large-scale massacres of the civilian populations, especially in the Khwarazmian- and Western Xia–controlled lands. Because of this brutality, which left millions dead, he is considered by many to have been a brutal ruler"
  - totony 6y ago
    From what I've seen Ganghis Khan was brutal against non-surrendering nations, but beneficial for those who followed him. E.g. you woulsn't see him cutting his subjects heads, and his brutality was pretty much an intimidation tactic so others army would join him.
    - fiblye 6y ago
      That's how authoritarian regimes usually work. Do everything they say and you'll be okay. The problem is a decent number of people don't want to be absolutely subservient.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        >Do everything they say and you'll be okay This is an extremely odd thing to say about authoritarians right now, although this may be my American perspective, since people have been pointing out recently how futile it can be when dealing with police in the US. Still, I kind of think it's universal - being polite to authority is utterly useless once you are a suspect, thought to be dangerous, or have something they want. It made a lasting impression on me when I was stopped in my car as a teenager and an officer decided that I must be a drug smuggler because I was too quiet/nervous. Edit: I guess if you interpret "everything" broadly enough, your statement is somewhat plausible, but "everything" includes many situations where an authority asks you something that is theoretically or ought to be voluntary and you have to be aware that it's not really a choice. And it's still not always true.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      >brutal against non-surrendering nations This is ambiguous about cities or nations that resisted and then surrendered. There seem to be a lot of references to how surrender was followed by everyone being killed or enslaved. I kind of think that's an area of contrast between their standards and today's. You can point to "civilized" countries destroying whole cities in the 20th century, but doing it after your enemy is defeated is much more frowned on. Also, when you say "beneficial for those who followed him" it elides what it meant when they enslaved the women and children from a conquered population. I don't think they generally allowed individuals to choose whether to be among those massacred or not. And what happened next probably wasn't consistent with modern human rights standards, which again, I think goes back to the original point that started the subthread.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      Oh it’s ok then
  - e15ctr0n 6y ago
    > considered by many to have been a brutal ruler He raided these places in military campaigns; he did not rule them at the time of the raids. So he was not a brutal ruler. In fact, he was a benevolent ruler, distributing loot equally and promoting on merit rather than nepotism. As another commentator has pointed out, the brutality was an intimidation tactic. It was very selectively applied. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23708182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23708182 He also did much to bring modern human rights to his subjects. You can read about it in Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford, an anthropologist who lives in Mongolia part-time. https://amzn.com/B000FCK206 https://amzn.com/B000FCK206
- pjc50 6y ago
  Wasn't expecting to see Khan revisionism here, but I suppose for every mass murderer there are people who like defending them.
galacticaactual 6y ago
It's unclear what you're rebutting here. My position is that on a cyclic basis, there will always be societal elements that will trend towards the negative and nefarious as long as it is tolerated. The fact that the global minimum for such things manifested themselves much more severely (as in your example) in the past does not change the fact that it still occurs today.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by gretch 6y ago

e15ctr0n 6y ago

> Genghis Khan Genghis Khan was neither a tyrant nor a monarch, nor was cutting off heads a part of his everyday life. He actually got more Mongol people more rights and a higher quality of life. I would request you to read a detailed and accurate account of his life by a historian. For example, Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy by Frank McLynn https://amzn.com/B00X2ZW5ZI https://amzn.com/B00X2ZW5ZI

perl4ever 6y ago
Do you find the following inaccurate or biased, and if so, for the uninformed, briefly why? "Campaigns initiated in his lifetime include those against the Qara Khitai, Khwarezmia, and the Western Xia and Jin dynasties, and raids into Medieval Georgia, the Kievan Rus', and Volga Bulgaria. These campaigns were often accompanied by large-scale massacres of the civilian populations, especially in the Khwarazmian- and Western Xia–controlled lands. Because of this brutality, which left millions dead, he is considered by many to have been a brutal ruler"
- totony 6y ago
  From what I've seen Ganghis Khan was brutal against non-surrendering nations, but beneficial for those who followed him. E.g. you woulsn't see him cutting his subjects heads, and his brutality was pretty much an intimidation tactic so others army would join him.
  - fiblye 6y ago
    That's how authoritarian regimes usually work. Do everything they say and you'll be okay. The problem is a decent number of people don't want to be absolutely subservient.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      >Do everything they say and you'll be okay This is an extremely odd thing to say about authoritarians right now, although this may be my American perspective, since people have been pointing out recently how futile it can be when dealing with police in the US. Still, I kind of think it's universal - being polite to authority is utterly useless once you are a suspect, thought to be dangerous, or have something they want. It made a lasting impression on me when I was stopped in my car as a teenager and an officer decided that I must be a drug smuggler because I was too quiet/nervous. Edit: I guess if you interpret "everything" broadly enough, your statement is somewhat plausible, but "everything" includes many situations where an authority asks you something that is theoretically or ought to be voluntary and you have to be aware that it's not really a choice. And it's still not always true.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    >brutal against non-surrendering nations This is ambiguous about cities or nations that resisted and then surrendered. There seem to be a lot of references to how surrender was followed by everyone being killed or enslaved. I kind of think that's an area of contrast between their standards and today's. You can point to "civilized" countries destroying whole cities in the 20th century, but doing it after your enemy is defeated is much more frowned on. Also, when you say "beneficial for those who followed him" it elides what it meant when they enslaved the women and children from a conquered population. I don't think they generally allowed individuals to choose whether to be among those massacred or not. And what happened next probably wasn't consistent with modern human rights standards, which again, I think goes back to the original point that started the subthread.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    Oh it’s ok then
- e15ctr0n 6y ago
  > considered by many to have been a brutal ruler He raided these places in military campaigns; he did not rule them at the time of the raids. So he was not a brutal ruler. In fact, he was a benevolent ruler, distributing loot equally and promoting on merit rather than nepotism. As another commentator has pointed out, the brutality was an intimidation tactic. It was very selectively applied. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23708182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23708182 He also did much to bring modern human rights to his subjects. You can read about it in Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford, an anthropologist who lives in Mongolia part-time. https://amzn.com/B000FCK206 https://amzn.com/B000FCK206
pjc50 6y ago
Wasn't expecting to see Khan revisionism here, but I suppose for every mass murderer there are people who like defending them.

galacticaactual 6y ago

It's unclear what you're rebutting here. My position is that on a cyclic basis, there will always be societal elements that will trend towards the negative and nefarious as long as it is tolerated. The fact that the global minimum for such things manifested themselves much more severely (as in your example) in the past does not change the fact that it still occurs today.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]