Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Genghis and Hitler Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 16:17 |
Chinggis conquest was no mistake, thats like saying the allies freeing europe was a mistake. there are still numerous wars in the world, that's common now and then and probably always will be, you can't get war out of human minds just like you can never get rid of jealousy, love or hate etc...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 16:23 |
Originally posted by Temujin
Chinggis conquest was no mistake, thats like saying the allies freeing europe was a mistake. |
The allies liberating Europe was no mistake, because it was done to
liberate Europe. I don't know very much about Genghis but AFAIK he
didn't care much about killing innocent people. (I know the allies
bombed many German cities as well, causing many civilian casualties,
and I indeed think that is wrong as well).
there are still numerous wars in the world, that's common now and
then and probably always will be, you can't get war out of human minds
just like you can never get rid of jealousy, love or hate etc... |
Sure, but does that justify it?
That's like saying murder, theft, rape, etc. should not be illegal because it will keep to occur anyway.
Edited by MixcoatlToltecahtecuhtli
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 16:27 |
Originally posted by MixcoatlToltecahtecuhtli
The allies liberating Europe was no mistake, because it was done to liberate Europe. I don't know very much about Genghis but AFAIK he didn't care much about killing innocent people. (I know the allies bombed many German cities as well, causing many civilian casualties, and I indeed think that is wrong as well). |
that may be true, but is not every common soldier innocent in a certain way?
Sure, but does that justify it? That's like saying murder, theft, rape, etc. should not be illegal because it will keep to occur anyway.
|
sure, but my argument was not justification btut eh only thign you can ever do about this is trying to cotnain this as mcuh as possible...but keep in mind that wars and killign people is not bad in every case.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 17:21 |
war is a natural part of humanity, targeted genocide agaisnt specific people for no reason is not....
Chinggis made war like any leader does, for land, power, and wealth, Hitler did even when not at war killed people because of who they where, thats a big difference.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 22:21 |
chinggis masacred whole cities because they were city-dwellers and he
had no use for them....razing many of the cities that you conquer to
the ground, killing everyone, and then making mountains of skulls is
not really "typical warfare" (i realize that he had some tactical
reason behind some of these masacres, but he himself just enjoyed
killing)
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
El_Bandito
Knight
Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 22:40 |
Chinggis enjoyed killing? Could be. I know he killed his
half brother Begter over a fish. Chinggis was only 10 years old
at that time and he killed his brother with bow and arrow. Wow.
Just to clear something up. Begter was actually the bully who
took the fish from Temujin, but little did he know that Chinggis DOES NOT
NEGOTIATE WITH BULLIES!
Edited by El_Bandito
|
I'm awake, I'm awake.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Aristoteles
Samurai
Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 09:14 |
Regarding the oppening post, I'd say that Ghenghis Khan has to be in a league of his own, when it comes to massacre, loot, pillage and rape. Nobody, and I mean this: nobody, considered the extensive depopulation of half Asia by the Mongols "normal" and their grand conquest of murdering and butchering was not considered to be on par even with the wildest medieval practices.
Conquest, in general, generates brutality. And the conquered are the victims. I've seen in another forum a comparison about Muslim and Mongolian conquest and even some comparisons with Alexander's and Roman conquest. All (but one - extremely pro-Mongol that one, and a Ghenghis-admirer) thought that in general the Mongolian conquest was so uber-horrendous that it not only was noticed as such by all contemporary historians (and they, as all here point out, were used in random acts of cruelty) but also left Asia lagging behind Europe ever since. The Mongols have carved an empire with blood, as all conquerors do. But they didn't just that. They exhausted the demographic reserves of Asia, have thrown whole cultures down the drain (was there any empire wealthier or more sophisticated than Khwarazm in the 13th century?) and have caused massive destruction whenever they felt like it. For the Mongols, the life of one Mongol was valued more than a 1.000 non-Mongols, and that's how they operated.
Hitler wasn't much better. He too valued his people way and above the others and he subscribed to the "our people have the right to live, the other are subhumans" club. His actions caused more deaths than those of Ghenghis, but that's only due to the fact that in mid 20th century the population of the earth was about 8-9 times larger than the one in the middle ages. Allegedly, the Mongol expansion has costed directly the lives of more than 15 million people (some say even as more as 25) while WW2 costed about 65 million lives. In Hitler's numbers, his own countrymates are included, while in the Mongols the victims were non-Mongols, and most of the times non-combatants.
Both of them are monsters words are too poor to describe. Some people seem to adore Ghenghis, but that's rather due to distance in time. In 500 years several (thousands? million?) people shall look back to Hitler and call him "great" and "awesome" and "cool"... that's what time does to dubious figures with great impact on history, you know.
...there are after all people now adoring Hitler...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 16:25 |
aristotles, i agree with your post. i don't really think that
genghis can be categorized differently than hitler. they were
both mass murderers on the most horrific scale with no regard
whatsoever for human life. what genghis did was not "typical of
his times", and hitler's actions were not either. slaughtering
cities of people like livestock just because you felt like it is
equal to systematically murdering people that you do not like.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
El_Bandito
Knight
Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 21:13 |
15 million deaths? Wow. Can anyone elaborate more on those
numbers according to the regions? All in all, Chinghis had
nomadic mentality of follow me, or die. Effective one too.
Personally he didn't enjoy all the killing,(since there were no
instances of him saying so in the Secret history of the Mongols)
He would much prefer the enemy people surrender and serve under
him. Well, foreigners resisted, so Chinghis killed. It was
a neccesity, not luxury. It was a more brutal time then, with no
gentlemanly wars. However, the 15 million deaths can't be blamed
all on him. After all, most of the conquests were done by his
children, and grand children. So technically the Mongol leaders
of the conquests should all share the blame. Plus Chinghis was,
as some people say, a barbarian, so he wasn't really a nice guy.
However, he was far more cunning, ruthless AND honorable than most
emperors I've seen during those times.
|
I'm awake, I'm awake.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 05:48 |
- Mongol Conquests (13th Century)
- Colin McEvedy,
Atlas of World Population History (1978):
- China Proper: In the text, he states that the population declined by 35
million as the Mongols reduced the country to subjugation during the 13th
Century. In the Chart, the population drops from 115M to 85M between 1200 and
1300 CE.
- Iran: Charted population declined from 5.0M to 3.5M
- Afghanistan: from 2.50M to 1.75M
- Russia-in-Europe: 7.5M to 7M
- Alan McFarlane, The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the
Malthusian Trap (2003): Chinese population reduced to half in 50 years --
over 60 million people dying or failing to be replaced.
- Washington Post, 4/4/4 review of Jack Weatherford's Genghis
Khan and the Making of the Modern World: "It's estimated that 15
million died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia."
- The (London) Independent (18 Aug. 2001): >3M died during the creation of
Genghis's empire.
- PGtH:
- 1.6M killed in Herat
- 160,000 of the Shah's troops killed at Bokhara
- Gibbon D&F3,6
- Zingis [Genghis]: conquest of Central Asia: 4,347,000 in 3 cities
- Maru: 1,300,000
- Herat: 1,600,000
- Neisabour [Nishapur]: 1,747,000
- Zingis: 160,000 Carizmians [Khwarizmi]
- Baghdad: pyramid of 90,000 skulls
- Cublai
- 100,000 Chinese commit mass suicide to escape
- 100,000 lost in expedition v. Japan
- R.J. Rummel accuses the Mongols of 29,927,000 democides in the 13th through
15th Centuries.
- Britannica 11th ed. (1911)
- Jenghiz Khan
- Herat: 1.6M
- Battle against Khwarizm: 160,000 Khw. k.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 14:09 |
ah, forget this site, it's completely worthless when it comes to numbers before the 20th century, in fact I even believe they purposely rise numbers...
and regarding Chingiz, modern reasearch has shown that no major genozides at all took place during his reign. first of all, it hes been foudn out that most triebs and cities he supposedly annihilated were still pretty big 100 years later, second, he could ahve never gotten the numebrs of sodleirs for his conquest fi he would not have included major numbers of subdued (in old history books called exterminated) to execute his conquests at all, at least the children and womenfolk were spared in almost all instances, and alst, most horror-stories about ravaging pludnering etc. actually referred to Timur the lame, not Chengiz, but dumb western historicians don't even realize the difference between the two and attribute massacres carried out by him to Chingiz.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 14:45 |
ah, forget this site, it's completely worthless when it comes to
numbers before the 20th century, in fact I even believe they purposely
rise numbers... |
He cites numbers from many people, it would be strange if they are all
wrong and purposely inflated. Apart from that, it's the most extensive
site on casualty statistics on the web.
let's put it this way: was it really nescesary (sp?) for CK to start wars?
Edited by MixcoatlToltecahtecuhtli
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 15:03 |
ha, was any war ever necessary?
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Miller
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 15:27 |
From Wikipedia:
1200, Northern China - 30,000,000 killed
1215, Yanjing China (today Beijing) - 25,000,000 killed
1221, Nishapur, Persia - ~1.7 million killed in assault
1221, Merv, Persia - ~1.3 million killed in assault
1221, Meru Chahjan, Persia - ~1.3 million killed in assault
1221, Rayy, Persia - ~1.6 million killed in assault
1226, Tangut Campaign - Gengis Khan launches war against the northern China people of Tangut.
1236, Bilr,Bulgar cities, Volga Bulgaria - 150,000 or more and more (nearly half of population)
1237-1240, Kievan Rus' - half of population
1241, Wahlstatt -- defeat of a combined Polish-German force in lower Silesia (Poland); the Mongols turn back to attend to the election of a new Grand Khan.
1258, Baghdad - ~800,000 people. Results in destruction of Abbasid dynasty
1226-1266, ~18 million reported killed in conquest of northern Chinese territory. This number estimated by Kublai Khan himself.
About 80 million killed in total over mongol reign.
Not sure how correct these number are but even if a fraction of that is correct that would put Mongols conquerers in a unique group. Hitler, Alexander, or Arabs didn't go this far
On the positive side Mongols pretty much adapted the culture of Persian in the west and Chinese in the east and spread both cultures around the world. Then again they may not have had any alternatives
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 15:40 |
Originally posted by Temujin
ha, was any war ever necessary? |
rarely
Genghis Khan whas one of the occasions during it was not necessary
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 15:50 |
but Chingiz has been unjustifly placed ahead of other more cruel conquerors and war mogners, I have often enough mentioned Charlemagne as such, he's even celebrated today. I simply don't see why Chingiz get's compared to Hitler while there are "better" contenders to match him...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 16:07 |
Originally posted by Temujin
but Chingiz has been unjustifly placed ahead of other
more cruel conquerors and war mogners, I have often enough mentioned
Charlemagne as such, he's even celebrated today. I simply don't see why
Chingiz get's compared to Hitler while there are "better"
contenders to match him... |
The reason that Charlemagne and the likes are not considered evil
because they're European/Christian. But indeed there's little
difference between Charlemagne and Chingiz. And I agree with you that
Hitler is even more evil than those two gentleman.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Genghis Khan
Janissary
Joined: 03-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 23:38 |
Hitler is considered evil because of the concentration camps. He killed people because of their ethnic group. Genghis had mass killings only in battle and for strategical reasons (fear and psychological warfare), not because he didnt like the people.
|
It is not sufficient that I succeed--all others must fail.
-- Genghis Khan
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
chessrook1
Janissary
Joined: 28-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 00:46 |
Because Chingiss Khan aka Temujin was a smart general and strategist who let his finest generals like Subedai and Jubei lead his army of over 125,00 able horsemen against armies numbering in the millions like China, Central Asia, and Persia. Whereas Hitler was a fookup. He was a smart politician but was a bad general and micromanage his army where it should have been his Generals job to do that. Even though, their empire was short-lived, the Mongols protected the Silk Road from other bandits and introduced the east and west to each other. Marco Polos writings of his travel are a good example. Chingiss Khan only killed if the people spite him like the kingdom of Xia in Central Asia whose king refuse to send auxiliary troops to help Chingiss men and told him back that he shouldnt have become khan if he didnt have enough men in his army. Chingiss Khan would later on take revenge for that insult. They would let the cities live if they surrendered peacefully and pay tributes without rebelling later on. They were also merciless if their messengers or heralds were killed by the enemy they were delivering message to from the Khan. A modern Mongol professor from Mongolia once said that Chinghiss Khan was sort of like a savage explorer like the explorers during the age of sail in Europe and China. The Professor said that he wanted to know how other settled people lived and wanted to make his people and the future capital of his empire to look like settled people.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Aristoteles
Samurai
Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 03:10 |
I find it of extremely bad tast, cynical, silly, childish, immature and a host of other similar characterizations (enter whatever you wish, no matter how harsh, I'll subscribe to it) to justify mass genocide and horrendous acts of mass brutality, by simply stating silly things like "yes, but those times were different" or "sure he killed many, but that was normal back then" or other similar bull.
Genghis is considered the greatest mass murderer of all times, he devastated an entire continent and halted the progress for the whole Asia, and you dare to compare him with people like Charlamagne, Alexander, J. Ceasar or any other for that account? All the conquerors of all times haven't done half of what the Mongols did alone.
We've lost any sense of reason here, haven't we?
How would the Ghenghiz admirers (even those named after him - we've got two resident Khan-nettes, huh?) feel if it was their mothers raped and then slaughtered, their fathers butchered, their brothers and sisters massacred? How would they feel if it was their homes torn down, their crops burned, their land ravaged?
Would you still feel that Ghenghiz was nothing more than "a great conqueror" and such similar crap? ![](smileys/smiley7.gif)
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |