Genghis Khan is the greatest general in the history of the world!.

[TemujinForever]

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!

[MarkF]

And evry single member of the kkk has african and asian blood in them...

[Ii Naomasa]

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]

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]

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]

TemujinForever,

You admire a man who conquered and slaughtered people? Are you psychotic?

[Zen Blade]

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]

Well, Ghengis Khan was a brilliant general as well as the devil in human desguise.

------------------
A great warrior rarely reveal his true skills....

[Khan7]

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]

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.

[MarkF]

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]

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]

Hitler was not a great leader, by this reckoning. Hitler lost.

Now Stalin, on the other hand...

[DarthGuru]

Temujin,
your a funny guy hehe These threads are hilarious...

[Khan7]

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

[clink]

Romel
Atila
Alexander
Hannable
Julius Ceasar
Napoleon

Genghis?...not.

[clink]

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.

[MarkF]

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...

[clink]

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]

What's an immortal banner made of? Did Temujin have access to plastics?

[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!

[solypsist]

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.

[Khan7]

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]

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?
------------------


[This message has been edited by Brown Wolf (edited 10-07-2001).]

[Brown Wolf]

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........



------------------

[TemujinForever]

Audrey Hepburn is so beautiful. Women like her are so beautiful all thanks to the Golden Hoarde and Batu Khan...

[Minamoto Yoritomo]

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]

Don't forget Atilla. I hear HUN gary is nice this time of year.

[RageMonsta]

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]

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.