This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]So Hitler kills 12 million in the holocaust, we call him the most evil man to ever live. Chingis Khan kills 40 million and we call him a badass :P Another interesting fact- 60 million of today's modern human population are estimated to be direct decendents of the guy...Yeah I suppose he'd have to be a badass to get that much ass, if you get my drift.foxhound_foxHitler targeted the Jews, homosexuals, the handicapped and Gypsies for extermination because they were everything wrong with Germany and his plans for a "master race." Genghis slaughtered every man, woman, child and animal in a town that refused to either unite with him or pay him tribute. Big difference.care to elaborate? both seem just as evil and cruel
care to elaborate? both seem just as evil and cruelBossPersonI thought I did already. Just because someone is a badass doesn't mean they aren't also excessively violent and cruel. Hitler targeted a specific group of people to be wiped off the face of the planet. Genghis wanted to conquer the world and killed anyone who stood in his way. There is a difference.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]care to elaborate? both seem just as evil and cruelfoxhound_foxI thought I did already. Just because someone is a badass doesn't mean they aren't also excessively violent and cruel. Hitler targeted a specific group of people to be wiped off the face of the planet. Genghis wanted to conquer the world and killed anyone who stood in his way. There is a difference.well imo neither of them are badasses, but yeah i see ur point
22 Million is still a huge number of people. It represents roughly 1/4 of the UK's entire population.Of the time, of course.
Link
Seriously, for one man (and most likely his entire group of mongols) to kill 40 mil and for a full scale war (WW2) across the globe to get only 66 mil is.....amazing. In a bad way of course, but WW2 was a full scale war and it didnt do THAT much more in deaths....interestingly enough.
Thoughts?
kris9031998
Being Arabic, it's pretty interesting how people feel when they hear of his bloody accomplishments... one more thing to relate with the Jewish people.Victorious_Fize
and its the nature of his accomplishment that makes me shake my head at it. They compare him to Hitler Hitler fought a major war with the other major powers of the world. Khan, went throughout largely peasant Asia, and butchered peasants. Most of the Juicy stuff, and the biggest accomplishments of that Empire, weren't even made by him, but by his sons. Why he's so revered, I'll never understand. Anyone can drive tanks over helpless people when there is no one to take out the tanks.
Did Khan kill a lot of Arabs? Slaughter, yes. He practically annihilated our territory (extended from "al maghreb" [morroco and al andalus] to al mashreq [eastern side of things, baghdad, persia, damascus, and all that etc) and it has been a historic mess since then.[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Being Arabic, it's pretty interesting how people feel when they hear of his bloody accomplishments... one more thing to relate with the Jewish people.whipassmt
[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Being Arabic, it's pretty interesting how people feel when they hear of his bloody accomplishments... one more thing to relate with the Jewish people.SamusFreak
and its the nature of his accomplishment that makes me shake my head at it. They compare him to Hitler Hitler fought a major war with the other major powers of the world. Khan, went throughout largely peasant Asia, and butchered peasants. Most of the Juicy stuff, and the biggest accomplishments of that Empire, weren't even made by him, but by his sons. Why he's so revered, I'll never understand. Anyone can drive tanks over helpless people when there is no one to take out the tanks.
Indeed. Genghis Khan is no badass. A coward he is for killing women and children through his direct tongue.[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Being Arabic, it's pretty interesting how people feel when they hear of his bloody accomplishments... one more thing to relate with the Jewish people.SamusFreak
and its the nature of his accomplishment that makes me shake my head at it. They compare him to Hitler Hitler fought a major war with the other major powers of the world. Khan, went throughout largely peasant Asia, and butchered peasants. Most of the Juicy stuff, and the biggest accomplishments of that Empire, weren't even made by him, but by his sons. Why he's so revered, I'll never understand. Anyone can drive tanks over helpless people when there is no one to take out the tanks.
He unified the heavily divided Mongol tribes and conqured as far as Kazakhstan with an army dwarfed by every enemy they fought. etc, etc[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Did Khan kill a lot of Arabs? Slaughter, yes. He practically annihilated our territory (extended from "al maghreb" [morroco and al andalus] to al mashreq [eastern side of things, baghdad, persia, damascus, and all that etc) and it has been a historic mess since then. To be fair the Maghreb and most of the Mashreq was territory conquered by the Arabs (originally from Arabia), not their indigineous homeland.[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Being Arabic, it's pretty interesting how people feel when they hear of his bloody accomplishments... one more thing to relate with the Jewish people.Victorious_Fize
And apparently I recently learned that Arabic has no letter "p", and that the English word farsi comes from the Arabic word Farsi (the actually Persian word is Parsi). this explains why an Egyptian foreign-Exchange student I meant kept saying "imbrove" rather than "improve".
Slaughter, yes. He practically annihilated our territory (extended from "al maghreb" [morroco and al andalus] to al mashreq [eastern side of things, baghdad, persia, damascus, and all that etc) and it has been a historic mess since then. To be fair the Maghreb and most of the Mashreq was territory conquered by the Arabs (originally from Arabia), not their indigineous homeland.[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Did Khan kill a lot of Arabs?
whipassmt
And apparently I recently learned that Arabic has no letter "p", and that the English word farsi comes from the Arabic word Farsi (the actually Persian word is Parsi). this explains why an Egyptian foreign-Exchange student I meant kept saying "imbrove" rather than "improve".
To even draw a comparison is extremely insulting. Don't try to make the tired "nobody is truly Arab but the people of the Gulf" as to make someone other than them (khalijis) a foreign. The Prophet himself was not a true Arab, he was an Adnani Arab, essentially an Arabized man, or tracing to an Arabized person (which he does: Ishmael), much like all the Arabs in Syria, Egypt, and everywhere else in the world. At the days of the Abbasid caliphate, most people embraced Islam and all were united with each other, in case you thought the Arabic empire that represented Syria, Egypt, Al Maghreb, among others, merely subjugated them and represented Khaliji Arabs.FYI, to be an Arabic is no more than to speak Arabic, although it would require somewhat a general approval out of beforehand Arabs (mostly adherence to cultural norms and joining out of good faith). This, coming from an Azdi Arabic.
Indeed, there is no letter "P" in Arabic, so it's normal to see an Arabic English speaker have a problem with it among other letters.
Persians are not Arabs, but they are considered on the Eastern side of things (eastern = mashreq), and are our brothers regardless of dictatorial asshats and fitan.
[QUOTE="SamusFreak"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Being Arabic, it's pretty interesting how people feel when they hear of his bloody accomplishments... one more thing to relate with the Jewish people.Tokugawa77
and its the nature of his accomplishment that makes me shake my head at it. They compare him to Hitler Hitler fought a major war with the other major powers of the world. Khan, went throughout largely peasant Asia, and butchered peasants. Most of the Juicy stuff, and the biggest accomplishments of that Empire, weren't even made by him, but by his sons. Why he's so revered, I'll never understand. Anyone can drive tanks over helpless people when there is no one to take out the tanks.
He unified the heavily divided Mongol tribes and conqured as far as Kazakhstan with an army dwarfed by every enemy they fought. etc, etcVast armies of rabble are easy to manipulate and conquer, many far more honorable men did the same. Many did so far more outnumbered, Khan was outnumbered, but not dwarfed. He faced enemies that were disorganized/poorly organized, that made many mistakes and poor judgement calls. far more often, he used cruel and brutal tactics against their peoples to beat them into submission, than actually besting them in bouts on the battlefield. He got far in his time, but what I said was true, the greatest extensions into Asia, Europe, and the Middle East were achieved long after his death, the Empire saw it's greatest expansion near the end of the 13th Century, he about a half century before it.
He unified the heavily divided Mongol tribes and conqured as far as Kazakhstan with an army dwarfed by every enemy they fought. etc, etc[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"][QUOTE="SamusFreak"]
and its the nature of his accomplishment that makes me shake my head at it. They compare him to Hitler Hitler fought a major war with the other major powers of the world. Khan, went throughout largely peasant Asia, and butchered peasants. Most of the Juicy stuff, and the biggest accomplishments of that Empire, weren't even made by him, but by his sons. Why he's so revered, I'll never understand. Anyone can drive tanks over helpless people when there is no one to take out the tanks.
SamusFreak
Vast armies of rabble are easy to manipulate and conquer, many far more honorable men did the same. Many did so far more outnumbered, Khan was outnumbered, but not dwarfed. He faced enemies that were disorganized/poorly organized, that made many mistakes and poor judgement calls. far more often, he used cruel and brutal tactics against their peoples to beat them into submission, than actually besting them in bouts on the battlefield. He got far in his time, but what I said was true, the greatest extensions into Asia, Europe, and the Middle East were achieved long after his death, the Empire saw it's greatest expansion near the end of the 13th Century, he about a half century before it.
Half of the empire was created by Genghis, and he laid teh basis for future conquests. Do you really think his successors were any less brutal? If anything, many were much less successful, launching ill-fated invasions of Japan, Vietnam, Jakarta, and the Holy Land. Genghis Khan faced actual empires- you are forgetting that at the time, the mongols were just nomadic tribes, no one could have forseen their swift rise. It was Genghis who organized them into a fearsome fighting unit, and cemented them as a nation for the first time in their history.[QUOTE="SamusFreak"][QUOTE="Tokugawa77"] He unified the heavily divided Mongol tribes and conquered as far as Kazakhstan with an army dwarfed by every enemy they fought. etc, etcTokugawa77
Vast armies of rabble are easy to manipulate and conquer, many far more honorable men did the same. Many did so far more outnumbered, Khan was outnumbered, but not dwarfed. He faced enemies that were disorganized/poorly organized, that made many mistakes and poor judgement calls. far more often, he used cruel and brutal tactics against their peoples to beat them into submission, than actually besting them in bouts on the battlefield. He got far in his time, but what I said was true, the greatest extensions into Asia, Europe, and the Middle East were achieved long after his death, the Empire saw it's greatest expansion near the end of the 13th Century, he about a half century before it.
Half of the empire was created by Genghis, and he laid teh basis for future conquests. Do you really think his successors were any less brutal? If anything, many were much less successful, launching ill-fated invasions of Japan, Vietnam, Jakarta, and the Holy Land. Genghis Khan faced actual empires- you are forgetting that at the time, the mongols were just nomadic tribes, no one could have forseen their swift rise. It was Genghis who organized them into a fearsome fighting unit, and cemented them as a nation for the first time in their history.We were talking about Ghenghis specifically, I did not say they were better men, did better, or were better. Simply that he died far before the empire saw it's greatest expanse. I have not disputed anything that he did, simply looked down upon the methods, and stated the truth, they are nothing special, nothing unique, and when it comes to battle, others have done the same with greater odds. Ghenghis did go against empires, such as the Jin Dynasty, they outnumbered him, but unless you would be mistaken to call them competent, intelligent, and organized, then it's not hard to see how he defeated them. The actions of the Jin Dynasty afterwards is facepalm worthy, and shows how stuipd they were.
He fought Empires yes,but most were complete jokes.
To that you probably think " well, he still beat them" And, that is the basis for this topic. I, and the other gentlemen, simply have stated what I have said above. If the kill count he achieved is all we are looking at and admiring then by all means, he by a very wide margin, is the cruelest and most sadistic bastard of a conquer in the history of the world. to my knowledge at least.
What a jerk. His ancestors should have to pay reparations. Because today there are peopel that are living off the benefits that caused. As per my liberal friends, these descendants must pay reparations. Reparations damn it!
Nobody said anything about reparations... you might want to... not venerate him instead?What a jerk. His ancestors should have to pay reparations. Because today there are peopel that are living off the benefits that caused. As per my liberal friends, these descendants must pay reparations. Reparations damn it!
sonicare
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment