View Full Version : Genghis Khan is the greatest general in the history of the world!.
TemujinForever
08-25-2001, 13:30
The Eastern Fringes of Germany all the way to Korea became united under Temujin's immortal banner.
Millions of modern day Europeans are descended from the mongols.
several 20th century celebs are of mongolian stock...
Audrey Hepburn
Yul Brynner
Walter Matthau
Kirk Douglas
even Prince Charles has mongolian blood! how you ask!? Part of his family tree extends to Russia's Romanovs whose ancestors were the Mongol aristocracy under Batu Khan!!!!
Temujin Forever!
And evry single member of the kkk has african and asian blood in them...
Ii Naomasa
08-25-2001, 22:09
Of course Genghis is the greatest general of all time. After all, according to some Japanese folklore, he's really Minamoto Yoshitsune, one of the most boldy brilliant or insanely fortunate (I lean towards the former, personally, but not so completely as some works do) samurai generals of the 12th century.
Of course, everyone and their mother tried to associate their country with Genghis Khan, so you can't blame the Japanese for wanting to associate a much beloved historical figure who normally would meet with a sorrowful end with a victorious general who accomplished more than any one many had. Despite that, though, it's odd that if you do an examination of Yoshitsune and Genghis Khan, there are many similarities...enough to make the story plausible in a 1-in-a-million sort of way. Of course, to accept the story would immediately discount all tales of Temujin before 1190...
Yoko Kono
08-26-2001, 22:04
Personally, i disagree.
I dont rate Ghengis as the best.
I reckon Mel Gibson is the best general of all time ;-)
i mean he had a great victory at stirling bridge vs. the english and then beat them in america too
but then what do i know? :P
TemujinForever
08-28-2001, 03:22
Genghis Khan is the greatest human being who ever lived. He was touched by God to accomplish the impossible! and he did!
Don't believe the lies the western historians tell you. The truth will set you free.....
Tachikaze
08-28-2001, 05:23
TemujinForever,
You admire a man who conquered and slaughtered people? Are you psychotic?
Zen Blade
08-28-2001, 05:46
Temujin,
remember that the history forum is for DISCUSSING points of interest....
"He was touched by god to accomplish the impossible" isn't exactly a viable argument...
But, please feel free to continue talking about Genghis.
-Zen Blade
------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG
Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
SHS Core Member
Tenchimuyo
08-28-2001, 05:51
Well, Ghengis Khan was a brilliant general as well as the devil in human desguise.
------------------
A great warrior rarely reveal his true skills....
The Mongols', and therefore the first Khan's, strategy for conquest was fatally flawed, as evidenced by their relatively brief existence as a large empire. Plus as others have said the kind of world he would've created isn't the kind of place I would want to live in.. his very own words indicate that he was interested in war and domination, not building a better tomorrow, which automatically rules out any truly good results of the preservation of his conquest, and pretty much dooms his empire from the start.
Don't get me wrong-- a strong leader who uses "barbaric" tactics to secure power and unite a people is often the only leader that will do in many situations, but Genghis and the Mongols took it several steps too far.
That said, the Mongols are hoss, and Genghis was very talented, but lauding such flamboyantly undeserved praise on such a man and such a people will do little to change what they really are.
------------------
Khan7
Oda Matsu
08-30-2001, 07:53
This "flame attempt" does raise an interesting issue, albeit inadvertantly. To wit: Why are leaders rated as worthy of note, based on their destructive potential? I am not attempting to moralize, simply posing a question as to the nature and reason for historical inquiry. That is, do we consider a competance for violence and warfare to be the apex of a ruler's worth? Do our concerns for a ruler's interest in developing commerce and social stability indirectly relate to this?
Ther eis something deeply tribal, almost instinctive, about the nature of our our historical inquiries, a phenomenon that perhaps a biological anthropologist would best be qualified to answer.
Temuchin you are not weary objecktive are you?
First of by your logic then Hitler to was great. Its just that Genghis lived several hundred years ago so the memories of his terror isn't as fresh as the nazis. Of course this isn't an even parallel i know that Genghis didn't go as far in racial exterminations.
And also by the way saying that modern day europeans has a lot of mongol blood in them is ,in my opinion of course, a bitt of an overstatment. As happened in china its not the chinease who got mongolified but the mongols who grew to be chinease. Wich isn't strange since the chinease population was many many times the number of the mongol. So most europeans does not have very much mongol in them at all.
And then to say that the british royal family is partly mongal is really absurd. Their connection to mongols through the romanovs isn't very big you know.
By your resoning not even Genghis Khan was Mongol, he should be north african.
Demon_Ninja
09-04-2001, 14:04
No he was a filthy barbarian. But hey atleast he didn't try and justify it by hiding behind religion like the crusaders did.
NOt to knock his skill as a general, but great man, puhleeeze.
[This message has been edited by Demon_Ninja (edited 09-04-2001).]
Oda Matsu
09-04-2001, 17:01
Hitler was not a great leader, by this reckoning. Hitler lost.
Now Stalin, on the other hand...
DarthGuru
09-05-2001, 06:45
Temujin,
your a funny guy hehe http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif These threads are hilarious...
Stalin's disastrous policies are the primary source of the rot that caused the unceremonious downfall of the Soviet Union-- plain and simple. Stalin lost, no matter what anyone says.
Matt
Romel
Atila
Alexander
Hannable
Julius Ceasar
Napoleon
Genghis?...not.
Quote Originally posted by Demon_Ninja:
No he was a filthy barbarian. But hey atleast he didn't try and justify it by hiding behind religion like the crusaders did.
NOt to knock his skill as a general, but great man, puhleeeze.
[This message has been edited by Demon_Ninja (edited 09-04-2001).][/QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------
Seems a lot of folk are hidding behind religion these days,or trying to jam it down some ones throat,like those not so tolerant assholes in Afganistan.
Just what is the U.N. conference on racism trying to justify? That the continent of Africa and the nation of Islam have been tolerent in its excistance...f#%@ me....am I getting off topic here,suppose I am. But you did mention religion.
Hitler was no great general,but you do have to give him some qualities in leadership. He did rise a demoralized Germany to hieghts of military power that surely shocked all of Europe.
Stalin was a paranoid freak,and was right up there with Hitler for votes who was most likely the antichrist. Which I could never understand the hypocrisy of Russian judges at the Nuremberg trials.But,to the victors go the spoils.
Filthy Barbarian....hmm...I kinda like that,
think I might change my user name.
Well actually islam has a tradition of being much more tolerant than christianity. But for 100years or so ago it changed....
Just think about the spanish inquisition. While the jews were being harassed in spain they wore greatly accepted in the islamic countries. And what about the crusades? the arab leaders wore much more tolerant against the christians then the christians wore to the arab people...
Agreed MarkF.
You can be rest assured I was not trying to make amends for Christianities history of persacution,greed,corruption and intolerence.
My comment was to reflect more the goings on at the U.N. conference on racism.
In its begining the U.N. started out with good intentions,but now is infested with limousine liberals trying to force its marxist morals on the rest of mankind.....I think this would serve better on a other thread for discusion.
Oda Matsu
09-25-2001, 06:19
What's an immortal banner made of? Did Temujin have access to plastics?
RageMonsta
09-27-2001, 22:23
The title of the thread is kinda wrong....'greatest general'....we would have to look at and Subudei (sorry for the spelling..you know the mongol bloke).....both rommel and napoleone studied his ways....also you can see how powerful the nazi 'blitz krieg' was...well this type of warfare was developed by the mongols...
The ways of the Mongol were actually no more barbaric than any others of the time or before....although the land and the people around Iran are still trying to recover....
One striking aspect of Mongol rule is their religious tolerance.....also how they welcomed and adopted worthy ways of conquered people......
We must understand that the nomadic people saw the farmer (until chinese advice about tax) as lower than low....not of any worth.
The tactics employed by the mongols were employed for a simple reason....they didnt have alot of man power.....they made an example of a city....hoping the others would see sense and capitulate....thus stopping any chance of them losing any more men.
There isnt many empires even up to the present day who tolerated others beliefs....anyway....gone a bit off track.....
generals- well the big G khan may have been the leader but he wasnt present for all the battles.....and we dont know he actually developed the systems the mongols employed....but we do know Subby (avoiding having to check the spelling)did have a hand in most of the comquest of eastern europe and a fair bit of china.....
Hitler was a crap general....it was after he decided to take over the German army we see them falling apart.......like most 'great leaders' they had great generals..i.e...hitler had rommel...ghengis had subby.....with napoleone as the exception....
But more than anything...great leader/great general....they all had us foolish idiots to send to our doom.
p.s..ignore my spelling....if ya can...hope I made a valid point though!
solypsist
09-28-2001, 09:25
Quote One striking aspect of Mongol rule is their religious tolerance.....also how they welcomed and adopted worthy ways of conquered people......[/QUOTE]
yeah, it's real easy to be tolerant of others' differences when they're all dead.
Apologism for the Mongols isn't really grounded IMO. Yes, they had few numbers.. the normal solution to this is to do a bit of careful, deliberate building of infrastructure etc.. but instead they decide to go on a wild wild ride, and as a result the whole thing comes crashing down on their heads in less than 2 centuries.
Needless to say they didn't know any better.. but that doesn't mean we should put them on a pedestal.
Their only tangible contribution to the development of civilization was that several hundred thousand psycho Mongol horsemen galloping around the countryside was a sure way to get leaders in Europe and China to wake up and start thinking big (tho can't be sure if even this was due to Mongols). But their direct effects were pretty much to burn and destroy and slaughter a whole bunch, as well as bring the Buebonic plague to Europe.
At any rate, they were great warriors, but their male-orgasm style of conquering made for a very ephemeral (or arguably even non-existent) empire, and a helluva lot of death and destruction.
Matt
Brown Wolf
10-07-2001, 21:15
Quote Originally posted by Demon_Ninja:
No he was a filthy barbarian. But hey atleast he didn't try and justify it by hiding behind religion like the crusaders did.
NOt to knock his skill as a general, but great man, puhleeeze.
[This message has been edited by Demon_Ninja (edited 09-04-2001).][/QUOTE]
Did you forget the Jiads of the Turks? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
------------------
[This message has been edited by Brown Wolf (edited 10-07-2001).]
Brown Wolf
10-07-2001, 21:17
Quote Originally posted by RageMonsta:
The title of the thread is kinda wrong....'greatest general'....we would have to look at and Subudei (sorry for the spelling..you know the mongol bloke).....both rommel and napoleone studied his ways....also you can see how powerful the nazi 'blitz krieg' was...well this type of warfare was developed by the mongols...
The ways of the Mongol were actually no more barbaric than any others of the time or before....although the land and the people around Iran are still trying to recover....
One striking aspect of Mongol rule is their religious tolerance.....also how they welcomed and adopted worthy ways of conquered people......
We must understand that the nomadic people saw the farmer (until chinese advice about tax) as lower than low....not of any worth.
The tactics employed by the mongols were employed for a simple reason....they didnt have alot of man power.....they made an example of a city....hoping the others would see sense and capitulate....thus stopping any chance of them losing any more men.
There isnt many empires even up to the present day who tolerated others beliefs....anyway....gone a bit off track.....
generals- well the big G khan may have been the leader but he wasnt present for all the battles.....and we dont know he actually developed the systems the mongols employed....but we do know Subby (avoiding having to check the spelling)did have a hand in most of the comquest of eastern europe and a fair bit of china.....
Hitler was a crap general....it was after he decided to take over the German army we see them falling apart.......like most 'great leaders' they had great generals..i.e...hitler had rommel...ghengis had subby.....with napoleone as the exception....
But more than anything...great leader/great general....they all had us foolish idiots to send to our doom.
p.s..ignore my spelling....if ya can...hope I made a valid point though![/QUOTE]
So wiping out a whole villiage (women, men and children) and pilling their bodies on a pile to rot in the sun was to save their men and not because they liked to sluagther their victims? Sure........
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
------------------
TemujinForever
10-09-2001, 01:07
Audrey Hepburn is so beautiful. Women like her are so beautiful all thanks to the Golden Hoarde and Batu Khan... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Minamoto Yoritomo
10-09-2001, 04:08
Audrey Hepburn IS beautiful? She's a corpse! Well, I guess you are right. There are many women who prematurely looked like her thanks to the Mongols.
TemujinForever
10-09-2001, 14:54
Don't forget Atilla. I hear HUN gary is nice this time of year. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
RageMonsta
10-10-2001, 02:16
Brown Wolf.....I explained the reasons for the mass killings......i did not say they were justified...ok lets look at this again shall we.....
1) the slaughter undertaken by the mongols was not rare during this period or before...just glance towards the crusades for 1 example.
2) the mongols had reasons...a) low man power...i.e unable to maintain garrisons
3) many lives would have been sparred with this tactic..as many cities surrendered without a fight because they had heard news of other actions taken by the mongols..
4) The mongols didnt destroy those who gave up.......
In saying this we must understand the Mongols way of thinking...they saw the farmer as the lowest of the low and totally worthless....as they didnt employ such task to their own people...only use the earth had was to produce grass for their horses.....
persecution is wrong.....but persecuters cannot be wrong ...be cause their actions are of course correct within their own society...so in many ways they are conforming to the norm...just as in modern times (in most countries) we see that it is wrong to have sexual relations with minors....and we inturn persecute those who do act in this unacceptable practise.
The romans fit into the western worlds attitudes towards a great culture...or kulture (as it is a german concept)....we hold those who create and grow in high esteem.....but then again the roman would partake in sexual pratices with children!
The point i was trying to make and what i am again trying to say now...is that the Mongols were no more barbaric than any others of the time or before.......and they had reasons for the mass killing.(wrong or not)..which are much less than widely reported.
Any clearer brown wolf?...or have you chosen not to read this post and try and understand the point i made.....then again ....maybe its my fault....either way..any questions about my stand on the actions of the mongols..feel free to ask....
Major Robert Dump
10-12-2001, 12:50
Excellent point Rage.
Tactics of warfare are conducive to the time frame in which they were used. This is not to say whether or not those tactics were morally acceptable, but rather to say the army at hand did what was necessary to conquer and win.
The tactics they used destroyed much, built little, and made their empire an ephemeral one..
Matt
TemujinForever
10-14-2001, 06:47
*The tactics they used destroyed much, built little, and made their empire an ephemeral one..*
The Mongol Empire was the single most important occurence in Human History. The true scope of its effect will only be understandable in the decades and centuries ahead.
Temujin I have probably never such a ignorant man as you in real life. At least I hope so...
(spelling edit)
[This message has been edited by MarkF (edited 10-15-2001).]
Quote Originally posted by Minamoto Yoritomo:
Audrey Hepburn IS beautiful? She's a corpse![/QUOTE]
Hehe, if she were a corpse, that has to be the most beautiful corpse that ever walked on earth.
But to say such such is beautiful because such and such has 1/256 fraction of blah blah blood is hilarious, of course.
[This message has been edited by Gothmog (edited 10-16-2001).]
BakaGaijin
10-17-2001, 22:35
I don't care what race you're being supremacist about, it's stupid.
Anyway, Genghis Khan and the Mongols managed to conquer all of Asia and rule it, after a fashion, for 200 years. That is, I would say, a bloody big accomplishment! The Mongol Empire lasted only as long as the United States have been in existence, for sure... but it was twice as large and encompassing nearly as much diversity in religion, ethnicities, etc. The great failing of the Mongols was really that they conquered too much, too quickly.
As for their barbarism, I'm with the others in suggesting that it was pretty much the norm for the time period. Also, let's remember that most of the history we have of the Mongols has been passed down to use by the peoples they conquered -- surely, they'd tend to exaggerate the evils of the people who defeated them! It is a very natural thing, even now, to exaggerate the villainy of one's opponent. The Nazis certainly did some very evil things, but if American propaganda of the Second World War is to be believed, then all German citizens roasted babies on spits. Manipulating fact to manipulate people is not a modern invention.
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
TemujinForever
10-19-2001, 13:25
*But to say such such is beautiful because such and such has 1/256 fraction of blah blah blood is hilarious, of course*
Gothmog look at Audrey Hepburn's facial features. She has the classic sharp far east asianesque facial features directly from her Mongol/Hun ancestry. She's amazingly beautiful. Eastern Europe should be proud http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
BakaGaijin
10-19-2001, 22:44
Shut the Hell up already.
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
MagyarKhans Cham
11-01-2001, 09:18
ha well, what do we have here? i will be short, i am a busy messenger
Mongols are peacefull and kind of nature... u can feel it if u visit their country(side). Submit and u life happily after, kepe your own religion and no dictatorship ruining your life. Resist and die. IMO that sounds fair http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Genghis is chosen to rule the world, and as a good ruler he needed servants of which Subudei was the best general ever (even not second to my own Khan). 67 major wins without a single loss in many different countries and terrain. No discussion here.
In every war u have to kill people, it keeps the human specie strong. Mostly innocent people die, thats sad. When we take the harsh steppelife in account then mongols were not that ruthless as stated in some books.They were open minded, believed in science (after all) and accepted all religions. Especially teh "early" Mongol had some drawbacks, and killed more people than needed. But it happens in every war. The americans also target hospitals.
I suggest further reading about the Mongols at my Khans site at http://www.mongols.club.tip.nl
------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]
Oda Matsu
11-11-2001, 13:50
Yeah. Sure. I hear that some people are rather partial to the Nazis. Probably will increase over time, once all the people who remember them firsthand are dead.
TemujinForever
11-13-2001, 15:23
Western Propaganda will fade away... and soon the truth shall prevail.
GLORY TO THE EIGHT WHITE ORDON!
BakaGaijin
11-14-2001, 06:41
Matsu, why did you revive this thread? It should be allowed to die.
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
theforce
11-22-2001, 20:42
Alexander the Great was the best. Kublai had his power on horses. If he faught Alexander with the 5m spears and the V formation phalanxs he would loose.
------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.nipogames.com/default.html
MagyarKhans Cham
11-23-2001, 17:45
10000 mongols with 60 arrows each means 600000 deadly arrows... never seen a foottrooper keeping up with a steppehorse or were those spears broomsticks?
I disagree that Ghengis was the greatest general of all time...but I don't really think that any one person can claim that title anyway.
However, as for his barbarism...I have heard people say that it was the norm for that time...
As opposed to say civilized western nations...like say Spain? Take some time to read some accounts of what they did in Teotihuacán when they finally siezed it from the Mexica. Thier native allies (supposed savages, right?), were so disgusted at the actions of the Spaniards that they wept - despite the fact that they despised the Mexica.
Jaguara
Minamoto Yoritomo
11-24-2001, 06:48
Quote Originally posted by theforce:
Alexander the Great was the best. Kublai had his power on horses. If he faught Alexander with the 5m spears and the V formation phalanxs he would loose.
[/QUOTE]
That's like saying American tanks and jet fighters only win because they never face civil-war era infantry tactics. The Maginot Line stands as a memorial to those who would ignore the importance of mobility to warfare.
TemujinForever
11-24-2001, 08:21
Genghis Khan is the greatest general in the history of the world. Imagine it - From a young orphan stuggling to survive, to the Emperor of the world! Temujin's accomplishments were beyond anything anyone could have ever imagined.
He was chosen by God to rule the world... and he did.
I kneel before him.
GLORY TO THE EIGHT WHITE ORDON!
Catiline
11-26-2001, 04:31
actually Magyar the spears were brooms in a sense, the formations only had the 1st 5 ranks with levelled pike, the rest were arrayed at an angle to break missile fire from arrows. That said, it didn't necessarily work too well, a strong Macedonian expedition was wiped out by the Scythians, using of course large numbers of horse archers and some noble heavy cav.
------------------
Oderint dum metuant
If by greatest general you mean widespread power and influence then I would suggest that you are all wrong. The greatest general then is certainly not Genghis, Romel, Napoleon, Wellington, or Alexander, but the CEO of Coca Cola, or MacDonalds. The widespread dominance of these two "empires" is staggering! Everywhere on this planet one can find either of these with astounding ease. While their empire may only be decades old and cannot compare to Egypt or Rome, it is so ingrained into everyone's lives that it would undoubtedly last a great deal longer.
Japan, a country of extremes.
Chaguhun Khan
11-27-2001, 11:40
Ok, I admit that Genghis wasn't the best, It was a team effort. Genghis started it, Ogedei expanded it, Guyuk sucked at it, Mongke took it too incredible heights and beat the heck out of Islam http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif, and Kublai stablized it, bettered it, then beat it to death like an idiot. Then there were amazing guys like Batu and Subedei! See it took everyone. Something to consider.
Chaguhun Khan
------------------
Official Mongol Cavalry-lover and lunitic (however you spell that)
"When someone annoys you, it takes over forty muscles to frown, but only four to slap the loser upside the head."
The only thing I want to consider is seeing this thread die... sorry.. grrrrr....
Matt
Klen Sakurai
11-27-2001, 16:03
I wonder if a thread like this could ever contend with old Shameless...
you see, Khan7, these threads have value if you look at them from the right angle.. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
Argalarganar.
ah yes, spam, almost forgot.
spamity spam, weeha
Matt
Papewaio
12-19-2001, 11:30
Quote Originally posted by TemujinForever:
Genghis Khan is the greatest human being who ever lived. He was touched by God to accomplish the impossible! and he did!
Don't believe the lies the western historians tell you. The truth will set you free.....[/QUOTE]
Touched by god is a euphemism for insane.
So TemujinForever its not true that opposites always attract... sometimes alike does as well
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
[This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 12-20-2001).]
Brown Wolf
12-20-2001, 07:26
*pounds head on computer desk* WHEN WILL THIS RANTING ABOUT KHAN END!
------------------
always be thinking
Papewaio
12-20-2001, 10:58
Quote Originally posted by Brown Wolf:
*pounds head on computer desk* WHEN WILL THIS RANTING ABOUT KHAN END!
[/QUOTE]
Wolf just be happy he isn't posting semi-nude airbrushed pictures of Genghis Khan or Khan7.
------------------
Never start a land war in Asia
Never bet with a Scilian when death is on the line
Never expect anything more then sarcasm from an Australian
Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
Wolf just be happy he isn't posting semi-nude airbrushed pictures of Genghis Khan or Khan7.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know which would be scarier...
How about a picture of Soly?
*everyone sucks in breath*
That's what I though! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
I think Soly is actually one of those two lesbian chicks (s)he keeps posting pics of...lucky him...I mean her.
Brown Wolf
12-22-2001, 12:26
Quote Originally posted by Jaguara:
I think Soly is actually one of those two lesbian chicks (s)he keeps posting pics of...lucky him...I mean her.[/QUOTE]
Careful, you might provoke soly into posting more pictures of crap.
------------------
always be thinking
MagyarKhans Cham
12-25-2001, 07:02
Genghis is chosen Man of the Millenium by the washington post
But when u speak about generals pur sang then there is only one second to none
Subudei
please guys spent some time reading about what he have done before bringing up Patton and alexander
I find this thread interesting. And look for material on the general subudei, and found this..
http://www.erickanton.com/letters/editors34.htm
.. a section from this huge page..
By the way, one of Qinggis' generals, Subudei, is not Mongol, but a Uriangkha, a Jurchen tribe from Jilin province in Manchuria.( near Changbai
shan)
When Qinggis invaded Jin, it was exactly like the revolution of 1949, many Jin armies wholesale defected to Qinggis side, not only Khitan and Hans
but many Jin officers too. They were extremely disgusted with the total mismanagement by the Jin administration of the empire. Even some native
Jurchen people like the Uriangkha, left behind and neglected by their kinsmen who went south and prospered joined Qinggis' ranks and provided him
with one of his best generals, Subudei.
--tootee the goldfish
solypsist
12-30-2001, 22:28
wow.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.