- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Jesus! Apparently I'm more evil.
Nah around here.....that would be me.
Jesus! Apparently I'm more evil.
Well... he had a lot more people to abuse but he got defeated by a taifun (or smth) when he tried to invade Japan.
Every morning when she gets out of bed, millions die before breakfast.
Morning MMC,
That is what I was asking. Comparing which issue between Genghis Khan and Alexander? Viciousness? Murder rate? Occupied territorial size? What was meant?
I'll take Hitler for $50, aberrant. Nobody in a political argument is ever accused of acting like Genghis Khan.
Having lived so historically recently, Hitler is rightfully held up as the height of evilness of mankind. Go back some 700 years, though, and Genghis Khan fit that description just as well. Both men are similar, having wrecked havoc on the population of Eurasia in a relatively brief, swift reign of terror.
While WWII was the deadliest war in history, with between 40 and 72 million deaths, the Mongol conquests come close, having result in between 30 and 70 million deaths. And by worldwide population, the Mongol conquests were much deadlier, 17% vs. 1-3% of living people having been killed.
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Each man committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, but today Genghis Khan enjoys an amount of notoriety, akin to that given to Alexander the Great.
So is one man more evil than the other? And if so, who?
I am now going to start doing that. Obama is just like Genghis Khan! The Mongols had socialized health care....
The real question is whether Khan was a conservative or libertarian
:2razz:
The thread is a question for students of history. If you are unfamiliar with the level of carnage Genghis Khan was responsible for it might surprise you to learn how similar to Hitler he was in his time.
The question I would ask you is was Khan's behavior out of step with how conquering armies of the time acted? I don't know, but would suggest if he acted more or less like most conquerors of his time it would paint his actions in a
different light relative to Hitler.
The real question is whether Khan was a conservative or libertarian
:2razz:
Attila should have been entered. The Huns were absolutely brutal and took no prisoners.
The question I would ask you is was Khan's behavior out of step with how conquering armies of the time acted? I don't know, but would suggest if he acted more or less like most conquerors of his time it would paint his actions in a
different light relative to Hitler.
those barbaric turks
Having lived so historically recently, Hitler is rightfully held up as the height of evilness of mankind. Go back some 700 years, though, and Genghis Khan fit that description just as well. Both men are similar, having wrecked havoc on the population of Eurasia in a relatively brief, swift reign of terror.
While WWII was the deadliest war in history, with between 40 and 72 million deaths, the Mongol conquests come close, having result in between 30 and 70 million deaths. And by worldwide population, the Mongol conquests were much deadlier, 17% vs. 1-3% of living people having been killed.
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Each man committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, but today Genghis Khan enjoys an amount of notoriety, akin to that given to Alexander the Great.
So is one man more evil than the other? And if so, who?
I always confuse Atilla the Hun with Genghis Khan. Sometimes Turkiye's ancestors are traced all the way back to Mongolia. What of the Hun's?
Yes. Indiscriminate murder of non-combatants, women and children after conquest was generally frowned upon. The Christians, Muslims and Chinese who were on the receiving end of Genghis' violence had rules of warfare.