Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Genghis and Hitler Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 21:18 |
i find it interesting that many people somewhat admire genghis khan,
but saying the same of hitler would be horrble (i am in no way a hitler
sympathizer, i'm just trying to make a point here)
they were both ruthless conquerors who killed millions in the course of their wars.
so what makes it ok to think genghis is cool but hitler is the devil incarnate
is it just that the memory of hitler is too recent...
hitler did commit the holocaust, one of the most horrific things ever
commited by human beings...but genghis khan slaughtered entire
civilizations because he felt like it
is it better to kill indiscriminately than to kill for a (very very disturbed) personal belief?
|
|
El_Bandito
Knight
Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 22:16 |
Well, lets see. Most civilizations admire their great Emperors or
Conquerers because those men gave their nations something to be proud
of, despite the massacre of millions. Napoleon is also a good
example. The trick for getting admired instead of demonized is
basically WIN THE DAMN WAR! If Hitler won his war, you and I would
probably be speaking in German and shouting Sieg Heil
PS: Napoleon didn't really win the whole war but hey, it took a
coalition bring him down. So I guess it is acceptable to the
French.
Edited by El_Bandito
|
I'm awake, I'm awake.
|
|
TheOrcRemix
Consul
Joined: 28-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 00:17 |
Win most of the battles.. interesting
|
True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.
Sir Francis Drake is the REAL Pirate of the Caribbean
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 12:15 |
well it's simple, Chinggis Qaan was a person that had a good personality, he created stable environment due to his wars and his laws which an even be cosnidered democratic. Hitler however had the intention to kill people he doesn't like, before the war he even categorized the kind of people he would kill because he thougth of them to be inferior. Napoleon has already been mentioned, the win-the-war theory can therefore be dismissed...
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 19:27 |
Well, Genghis did spread Chinese culture and create a Pax Mongolica, and in general the mongol states were civilization spreading and not the anti-civilization of the Nazis.
I personally admire Genghis, hence my username.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 19:40 |
he was no worse than any other steppe or even settled comunity conqueror in how he behaved, he was only more sucessfull. LAso remember most of Mongol history is written by the unhappy losers, The great Khan also advanced government and trade in ways ahead of his time which Hitler did not. Also the people the Khan killed was either through the haphazard of war or through strategic example, very different than the targeted execution of people based on ethnicity.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 20:01 |
The extent of the killing and destruction is distorted by sheer size of
the conquests. Julius Caesar killed a million men in Gaul, which wasn't
as much, but considering how Gaul wasn't as heavily populated as China
or Kwarezm, the percentage was almost comparable. Genghis Khan was no
more cruel than any other barbarian leader. If you were to replace him
with another leader of his time, like Richard the Lionhearted, the
amount of destruction would have been the same.
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 20:18 |
Some historians, especially french, claim novadays that the number 1.000.000 of gauls that died during 10 years of Caesars conquest of Gaul is much bigger than real number of casualties.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 22:47 |
I don't think Genghis is as bad as Hitler. I'll admit sometimes he does have some strange views and he is this forum's resident right wing nutter. But he does know a lot about invading Russia, he's not Welsh and I'm sure he's nice to his mother. Now if it's was Genghis and Pol Pot... hmmm
|
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 16:45 |
Originally posted by Paul
I don't think Genghis is as bad as Hitler. I'll admit sometimes he does have some strange views and he is this forum's resident right wing nutter. But he does know a lot about invading Russia, he's not Welsh and I'm sure he's nice to his mother. Now if it's was Genghis and Pol Pot... hmmm
|
Thank you, when I am world overlord, you shall be justly rewarded.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 17:51 |
haha i realized after i posted the topic that maybe i should have
called it "genghis khan and hitler"....just so our own genghis didn't
think that i was comparing him to hitler
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 21:07 |
Haha, it's okay, I'm not so egotistical that when I see the word Genghis, I automatically assume it's me. If I ever do, somebody either slap me or make me spend less time on AE.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2005 at 16:52 |
Originally posted by Genghis
Haha, it's okay, I'm not so egotistical that when I see the word Genghis, I automatically assume it's me. |
If that's true then maybe you're not cut out for world rule.
|
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2005 at 18:29 |
many times the true world rule ego does not come until the power has been achieved.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2005 at 19:14 |
Oh believe me, I already have the ego, but I'll go by my real name, and not my AE one.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Miller
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2005 at 00:52 |
Originally posted by Murph
i find it interesting that many people
somewhat admire genghis khan, but saying the same of hitler would be
horrble (i am in no way a hitler sympathizer, i'm just trying to make
a point here)
|
If by "many people" you mean people
outside this forum I am not the above statement is correct.
Regardless, if Hilter was concerned
about public relation he sure picked on the wrong group of people
|
|
Monkeydust
Immortal Guard
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2005 at 09:24 |
Perhaps it simply has something to do with different eras in which the two men lived.
Genghis was around in an age when a "proper" ruler was expected, or at least not condemned, for invading expansive territories and killing a few innocents in the process. He is not vilified, perhaps, because he was simply doing the "norm" of his epoch.
Hitler, on the other hand, inhabited a world where first-world states were expected to be at least bearable, if sometimes oppressive, places to live. His imperial aims, or raher the fact that he acted upon them, were quite unique. And, moreover, his killing was so sytematic and predetermined that many just find it chilling.
|
|
Kalevipoeg
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 10:05 |
The Matter, that one lived in the middle ages and the other in the modern era, makes the unarguable difference. In the middle ages, killing was a part of life and it was also in honor. People were in a way used to the annual raids and massacres commited by their opponents. It was a natural loss, that a certain percentage of your people were lost due to war. There was also no nationalism and blind hate towards the attacker so people did not feel the same feelings as they do today against strangers, those being the invaders.
Killing was a normal sight for the midlleages. Without it, life couldn't be imagined. A war was one of the few easy ways to keep your people alive.
These days, wars have turned into atrocities for the people and therefore, Hitler is worse, because to enter a war in this era, it takes a more disturbed person.
|
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 15:44 |
Originally posted by Kalevipoeg
The Matter, that one lived in the middle ages and the other in the modern era, makes the unarguable difference. In the middle ages, killing was a part of life and it was also in honor. People were in a way used to the annual raids and massacres commited by their opponents. It was a natural loss, that a certain percentage of your people were lost due to war. There was also no nationalism and blind hate towards the attacker so people did not feel the same feelings as they do today against strangers, those being the invaders.
Killing was a normal sight for the midlleages. Without it, life couldn't be imagined. A war was one of the few easy ways to keep your people alive.
These days, wars have turned into atrocities for the people and therefore, Hitler is worse, because to enter a war in this era, it takes a more disturbed person.
|
During the times of ancient Greece the same 'ideas' of human rights existed as today. So perhaps westerners at least have no excuse. Similarly Confusionism and Budhism was well eastblished in the far east so they can't be let off the hook either.
And I think the 20th century has proven worse than any prior century for inhumanity. So I think Hitler & Stalin are on a level playing field with medieval kings, Roman & Chinese emperors when it comes to us judging them.
Edited by Paul
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 16:07 |
Originally posted by Kalevipoeg
The Matter, that one lived in the middle ages
and the other in the modern era, makes the unarguable difference. In
the middle ages, killing was a part of life and it was also in honor.
People were in a way used to the annual raids and massacres commited by
their opponents. It was a natural loss, that a certain percentage of
your people were lost due to war. There was also no nationalism and
blind hate towards the attacker so people did not feel the same
feelings as they do today against strangers, those being the invaders.
Killing was a normal sight for the midlleages. Without it, life
couldn't be imagined. A war was one of the few easy ways to keep your
people alive. |
If you would be able to ask Genghis victims I'm sure they'd rather want killing not to be normal.
Besides, if we want to learn from mistakes made in history we'd surely not say "It was normal back then, so it was not bad."
|
|