[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
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.
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. 
Log in to comment