Genghis Khan

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 8:30 am

Genghis Khan had four sons from his wife Borte: Jochi, Chagatai, Ogedei, and Tolui. Only the four sons of Borte would inherit his kingdom. But who would be the Khagan, or Khan of Khans, after Genghis's death. Ordinarily it would have been the eldest son Jochi. But then two things counted against Jochi. First, he quarreled with Chagatai and Chagatai made it clear he would never accept Jochi as the Khagan. Secondly, Jochi was born just after his mother Borte was rescued after having been taken prisoner by Genghis Khan's enemies and there was a question mark on Jochi's paternity.

Chagatai was passed over because of being too temperamental and also for quarreling with Jochi.

And so Ogedei (also spelled Ogodei), the third son, was chosen by Genghis to to be his successor. By all accounts, Ogedei lived up to his father's expectations. Ogedei is said to have been balanced and cool headed.
--------
Ogedei was less successful than Genghis with respect to his choice of his own successor. Ogedei's favourite wife was Töregene Khatun, but his favorite son was Kochu who had been born through another wife. Ogedei wanted Kochu's son Siremun to be the next Khagan after him. Fate decreed otherwise.

After Ogedei died, Toregene Khatun was made Regent by the other Khans and through her machinations she managed to install her son Guyuk Khan as the next Khagan. Guyuk made a competent and capable Khagan but he also had a falling out with his mother Toregene Khatun. Guyuk also had a character flaw: he was an alcoholic. He died of alcoholism when only 42.

Guyuk's wife Oghul Qaimish became the reagent at this time, but she was outmaneuvered by her enemies in the family. Mongke Khan, son of Tolui (the youngest son of Genghis Khan) would become the next Khagan.

After Mongke Khan became Khazan, the Ogedei family planned a coup to overthrow Mongke, but the plot was discovered. Oghul Qaimish was executed. As were her sons; and also Shiremun--the same Shiremun who Ogedei wanted to be Khagan after him.

------

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 8:35 am

Rashmun wrote:Genghis Khan had four sons from his wife Borte: Jochi, Chagatai, Ogedei, and Tolui. Only the four sons of Borte would inherit his kingdom. But who would be the Khagan, or Khan of Khans, after Genghis's death. Ordinarily it would have been the eldest son Jochi. But then two things counted against Jochi. First, he quarreled with Chagatai and Chagatai made it clear he would never accept Jochi as the Khagan. Secondly, Jochi was born just after his mother Borte was rescued after having been taken prisoner by Genghis Khan's enemies and there was a question mark on Jochi's paternity.

Chagatai was passed over because of being too temperamental and also for quarreling with Jochi.

And so Ogedei (also spelled Ogodei), the third son, was chosen by Genghis to to be his successor. By all accounts, Ogedei lived up to his father's expectations. Ogedei is said to have been balanced and cool headed.
--------
Ogedei was less successful than Genghis with respect to his choice of his own successor. Ogedei's favourite wife was Töregene Khatun, but his favorite son was Kochu who had been born through another wife. Ogedei wanted Kochu's son Siremun to be the next Khagan after him. Fate decreed otherwise.

After Ogedei died, Toregene Khatun was made Regent by the other Khans and through her machinations she managed to install her son Guyuk Khan as the next Khagan. Guyuk made a competent and capable Khagan but he also had a falling out with his mother Toregene Khatun. Guyuk also had a character flaw: he was an alcoholic. He died of alcoholism when only 42.

Guyuk's wife Oghul Qaimish became the reagent at this time, but she was outmaneuvered by her enemies in the family. Mongke Khan, son of Tolui (the youngest son of Genghis Khan) would become the next Khagan.

After Mongke Khan became Khazan, the Ogedei family planned a coup to overthrow Mongke, but the plot was discovered. Oghul Qaimish was executed. As were her sons; and also Shiremun--the same Shiremun who Ogedei wanted to be Khagan after him.

------

------
The descendants of Tolui (youngest son of Borte and Genghis Khan) would go on to rule China. The descendants of Chagatai (second son of Borte and Genghis) would go on to rule India.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 8:50 am

Rashmun wrote:

------
The descendants of Tolui (youngest son of Borte and Genghis Khan) would go on to rule China. The descendants of Chagatai (second son of Borte and Genghis) would go on to rule ~~India~~ Northindia.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 8:51 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Genghis Khan had four sons from his wife Borte: Jochi, Chagatai, Ogedei, and Tolui. Only the four sons of Borte would inherit his kingdom. But who would be the Khagan, or Khan of Khans, after Genghis's death. Ordinarily it would have been the eldest son Jochi. But then two things counted against Jochi. First, he quarreled with Chagatai and Chagatai made it clear he would never accept Jochi as the Khagan. Secondly, Jochi was born just after his mother Borte was rescued after having been taken prisoner by Genghis Khan's enemies and there was a question mark on Jochi's paternity.

Chagatai was passed over because of being too temperamental and also for quarreling with Jochi.

And so Ogedei (also spelled Ogodei), the third son, was chosen by Genghis to to be his successor. By all accounts, Ogedei lived up to his father's expectations. Ogedei is said to have been balanced and cool headed.
--------
Ogedei was less successful than Genghis with respect to his choice of his own successor. Ogedei's favourite wife was Töregene Khatun, but his favorite son was Kochu who had been born through another wife. Ogedei wanted Kochu's son Siremun to be the next Khagan after him. Fate decreed otherwise.

After Ogedei died, Toregene Khatun was made Regent by the other Khans and through her machinations she managed to install her son Guyuk Khan as the next Khagan. Guyuk made a competent and capable Khagan but he also had a falling out with his mother Toregene Khatun. Guyuk also had a character flaw: he was an alcoholic. He died of alcoholism when only 42.

Guyuk's wife Oghul Qaimish became the reagent at this time, but she was outmaneuvered by her enemies in the family. Mongke Khan, son of Tolui (the youngest son of Genghis Khan) would become the next Khagan.

After Mongke Khan became Khazan, the Ogedei family planned a coup to overthrow Mongke, but the plot was discovered. Oghul Qaimish was executed. As were her sons; and also Shiremun--the same Shiremun who Ogedei wanted to be Khagan after him.

------

------
The descendants of Tolui (youngest son of Borte and Genghis Khan) would go on to rule China. The descendants of Chagatai (second son of Borte and Genghis) would go on to rule India.

the descendants of Jochi, eldest son of Borte and Genghis Khan, would go on to rule a vast region which included eastern europe and west asia.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 8:53 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

------
The descendants of Tolui (youngest son of Borte and Genghis Khan) would go on to rule China. The descendants of Chagatai (second son of Borte and Genghis) would go on to rule ~~India~~ ~~North~~india.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 8:54 am

gneghis khan was also a phenomenal rapist without equal. 0.5% of today's global population, i.e. 16 million men have his Y-chromosome.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 8:56 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

------
The descendants of Tolui (youngest son of Borte and Genghis Khan) would go on to rule China. The descendants of Chagatai (second son of Borte and Genghis) would go on to rule ~~India~~ ~~Northindia~~ Northindia.

that's what i meant.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 8:57 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:gneghis khan was also a phenomenal rapist without equal. 0.5% of today's global population, i.e. 16 million men have his Y-chromosome.

Alternative theory

However, there, is also the notion that the Y-chromosonal lineage found in great number of today's population does not orginate strictly from Genghis Khan, but also from his brothers and even more distantly related members of his family(such as children of brothers of his father or other male-line ancestors). As such, attributing the significant presence of the Y-chromosonal lineage to Genghis alone is perhaps a simplification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 8:58 am

also this map shows a more nuanced picture as opposed to your post above:

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 9:04 am

possibly true. but what i wrote only needs a slight modification. let me restate it thusly:

not just genghis khan but his entire clan were rapists without equals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 9:06 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:possibly true. but what i wrote only needs a slight modification. let me restate it thusly:

not just genghis khan but his entire clan were rapists without equals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

polygamy was widely practiced by the mongols at that time.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 9:08 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:possibly true. but what i wrote only needs a slight modification. let me restate it thusly:

not just genghis khan but his entire clan were rapists without equals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

polygamy was widely practiced by the mongols at that time.

polygamy and rape are hardly the same thing. you are confused. from the national geographic article i linked to above:

Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents
written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest,
looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers,
but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson,
Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22
legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem
each year.

"The historically documented events accompanying the establishment of
the Mongol empire would have contributed directly to the spread of this
lineage," the authors conclude.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 9:15 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:possibly true. but what i wrote only needs a slight modification. let me restate it thusly:

not just genghis khan but his entire clan were rapists without equals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

polygamy was widely practiced by the mongols at that time.

polygamy and rape are hardly the same thing. you are confused. from the national geographic article i linked to above:

Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents
written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest,
looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers,
but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson,
Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22
legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem
each year.

"The historically documented events accompanying the establishment of
the Mongol empire would have contributed directly to the spread of this
lineage," the authors conclude.

every european king was having multiple mistresses. moreover, consider the fact that the mongols ruled--for several generations--the largest land kingdom the world has known. this would have implied a lot of movement of mongols (not just soldiers but also civilians for instance traders) in their territory which extended from eastern europe to northern china at one time.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 9:17 am

in my opinion, we need to guard against eurocentrism in which Alexander becomes Alexander the Great, the great military tactician and strategist, and Genghis Khan becomes a barbarian.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 9:21 am

Rashmun wrote:in my opinion, we need to guard against eurocentrism in which Alexander becomes Alexander the Great, the great military tactician and strategist, and Genghis Khan becomes a barbarian.

you and your bi, tri, and quadri-vedic mastering ancestors are also descendants of the steppes people from whom alexander was descended. embrace your euro connection rashmun.

by garam_kuta Mon May 07, 2012 9:33 am

Rashmun wrote:in my opinion, we need to guard against eurocentrism in which Alexander becomes Alexander the Great, the great military tactician and strategist, and Genghis Khan becomes a barbarian.

alex been singularly called the great because he was only 24 when he had done it all...

by Idéfix Mon May 07, 2012 9:56 am

In the words of mahAkavi srI srI (my artless translation doesn't do his work justice):

The history of which country in the world
Is worthy of unadulterated pride?
Mankind's entire history is replete
With persecution and genocide ...

Genghis Khan, Timerlane, Nadir Shah
Muhammads of Ghazna and Ghor
Sikandar -- what does it matter who?
Everyone of them a mass-murderer ...

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 11:20 am

panini press wrote:In the words of mahAkavi srI srI (my artless translation doesn't do his work justice):

The history of which country in the world
Is worthy of unadulterated pride?
Mankind's entire history is replete
With persecution and genocide ...

Genghis Khan, Timerlane, Nadir Shah
Muhammads of Ghazna and Ghor
Sikandar -- what does it matter who?
Everyone of them a mass-murderer ...

were Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Louis IVX, Krishnadeva Raya and Raja Raja Chola saints? Did they not kill people?
is there a single great king in the ancient or medieval world who was not also a great conqueror?
on another note, one needs to note that Genghis Khan was not a muslim.
His religion was nature worship.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 12:32 pm

raja rajan and krishnadevaraya built temples and monuments of great architectural merit and fostered the flowering of arts and literature during their watch. they sure fought wars with their enemies, but there is no record of them raping and pillaging and wantonly spreading their seed in the manner of the mongol hordes. not even close. nobody on this thread (yet) has said anything about genghis khan's religion.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 12:36 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:raja rajan and krishnadevaraya built temples and monuments of great architectural merit and fostered the flowering of arts and literature during their watch. they sure fought wars with their enemies, but there is no record of them raping and pillaging and wantonly spreading their seed in the manner of the mongol hordes. not even close. nobody on this thread (yet) has said anything about genghis khan's religion.

Yet, the legacy of Genghis Khan, his sons, and grandsons is also one of cultural development, artistic achievement, a courtly way of life, and an entire continent united under the so-called Pax Mongolica ("Mongolian Peace"). Few people realize that the Yuan dynasty in China (1279–1368) is part of Genghis Khan's legacy through its founder, his grandson Kublai Khan (r. 1260–95). The Mongol empire was at its largest two generations after Genghis Khan and was divided into four main branches, the Yuan (empire of the Great Khan) being the central and most important. The other Mongol states were the Chaghatay khanate in Central Asia (ca. 1227–1363), the Golden Horde in southern Russia extending into Europe (ca. 1227–1502), and the Ilkhanid dynasty in Greater Iran (1256–1353).

The Mongols were remarkably quick in transforming themselves from a purely nomadic tribal people into rulers of cities and states and in learning how to administer their vast empire. They readily adopted the system of administration of the conquered states, placing a handful of Mongols in the top positions but allowing former local officials to run everyday affairs. This clever system allowed them to control each city and province but also to be in touch with the population through their administrators. The seat of the Great Khanate in Dadu (Beijing) was the center of the empire, with all its pomp and ceremony, whereas the three semi-independent Central and western Asian domains of the Chaghatay, the Golden Horde, and the Ilkhanids were connected through an intricate network that crisscrossed the continent. Horses, once a reliable instrument of war and conquest, now made swift communication possible, carrying written messages through a relay system of stations. A letter sent by the emperor in Beijing and carried by an envoy wearing his paiza, or passport, could reach the Ilkhanid capital Tabriz, some 5,000 miles away, in about a month.

The political unification of Asia under the Mongols resulted in active trade and the transfer and resettlement of artists and craftsmen along the main routes. New influences were thus integrated with established local artistic traditions. By the middle of the thirteenth century, the Mongols had formed the largest contiguous empire in the world, uniting Chinese, Islamic, Iranian, Central Asian, and nomadic cultures within an overarching Mongol sensibility.

Genghis Khan’s grandson Hülegü (died 1265) subdued Iran in 1256 and conquered Baghdad, the capital of the cAbbasid caliphate, in 1258. Hülegü's dynasty—the Ilkhanids, or Lesser Khans—ruled this area, called Greater Iran, until about 1353. After their rapid gain of power in the Muslim world, the Mongol Ilkhanids nominally reported to the Great Khan of the Yuan dynasty in China, and in the process imported Chinese models to better define their tastes. However, the new rulers were greatly impressed by the long-established traditions of Iran, with its prosperous urban centers and thriving economy, and they quickly assimilated the local culture. The Mongol influence on Iranian and Islamic culture gave birth to an extraordinary period in Islamic art that combined well-established traditions with the new visual language transmitted from eastern Asia.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/khan1/hd_khan1.htm

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 07, 2012 12:39 pm

did genghis khan not build huge mounds of human skulls in russia? is that not natural architecture of the highest order?

by doofus_maximus Mon May 07, 2012 12:41 pm

vomit begins...which part of this cut and paste is new or unknown.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 12:43 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:did genghis khan not build huge mounds of human skulls in russia? is that not natural architecture of the highest order?

Propa, did you know that Genghis Khan was not a muslim?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 12:44 pm

and btw it's louis XIV not IVX.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 12:45 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:and btw it's louis XIV not IVX.

that's right. thanks for the correction.

by Idéfix Mon May 07, 2012 1:18 pm

The "copy-paste as counterargument" Method is still going strong, I see.

Here is Genghis Khan's most striking and direct achievement.

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

Rank	Death Toll	Cause	Centuries
1	66 million	Second World War	20C
2	40 million	Mao Zedong (mostly famine)	20C
3	40 million	Genghis Khan	13C
4	27 million	British India (mostly famine)	19C

Genghis accomplished in the 13th century what many countries around the world had to come together to accomplish in the 20th, when the population of the world was higher by an order or magnitude. Kudos to Genghis Khan.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 1:38 pm

panini press wrote:The "copy-paste as counterargument" Method is still going strong, I see.

Here is Genghis Khan's most striking and direct achievement.

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries

1 66 million Second World War 20C

2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C

3
40 million Genghis Khan 13C

4 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
Genghis accomplished in the 13th century what many countries around the world had to come together to accomplish in the 20th, when the population of the world was higher by an order or magnitude. Kudos to Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan did what Raja Raja Chola and Krishnadeva Raya did--only he did things on a grander scale because he was a greater conqueror than the telugu and tamil kings. Something about Rajaraja:

"Ruthless conqueror. Having first fought and then agreed to a truce with Vengi of the eastern Chalukyas, Rajaraja, according to his own inscription, conquered Lakshadweep and the Maldives. Buddhist literature from Sri Lanka says that the Indian king took advantage of an internal strife in Sri Lanka and invaded the island. The ruthless Chola conquest was apparently no different from the conduct of Mahmud of Ghazni at Somnath. The Kulavamsa says that the capital Anuradhapura, which sported many Buddhist viharas, was 'utterly destroyed in every way by the Chola army.' Not only were the viharas decimated, but the holy stupas in them were torn apart in search of treasure. As George W. Spencer observes in The Politics of Expansion: The Chola Conquest of Sri Lanka and Sri Vijaya, 'Even if we allow for the exaggeration of the chroniclers, it is clear that the Cholas devastated the city.' "
---
"It was no religious conquest. The viharas were looted because they contained treasures, as did the temples of India during Mahmud's conquest. Rajaraja's adventures may be dismissed as having happened within the extended coastal waters of India. But his son Rajendra was a true conqueror of overseas territories. Says Dr. K.V. Hariharan in The Chola Maritime Activities in Early Historical Setting: 'Of the most notable was Rajendra Chola's naval expedition against Kadaram. In this expedition, he defeated a king named Sangama Vijayottungavarman, the king of Kataha, belonging to the Sailendras of Java. The territories wrested by the Cholas from this king consisted of the extensive kingdom of Sri Vijaya, which at one time included Sumatra and Java, with its capital at Palembang.' "
---
"Apparently it was after the Sailendra dynasty wrested the Sri Vijaya empire that relations with the Cholas soured. Is it probable that the imperial Chola was apprehensive of the conquering energy of the Sailendras ruling over the Sri Vijaya empire? There are scholars who believe that by the time Rajendra came to [the] throne, the Sailendra power was ebbing. Anyway, at its height, it encompassed all the islands from Nicobar to Sumatra and included the entire Malayan peninsula. Its capital, the city of Sri Vijaya, was believed to be to the southeast corner of Sumatra."
---
"Not only did Rajendra's army sack Kadaram and the Sri Vijaya capital, but it also took the Sri Vijaya king Sangrama Vijayottungavarman captive. The kingdom was restored to him only after he acknowledged Chola suzerainty. Tamil inscriptions recovered from the region show that there was Chola military presence till at least 1088 in the Malay archipelago." ...

"Information on these raiding conquests are sketchy, but scholars like R.C. Majumdar think that the emperor despatched more than one expedition to humble the Sri Vijayas. The list of 13 towns in the archipelago sacked by the Cholas has come from Rajendra's own inscriptions. Scholars have identified all but two of them. Six are located on the Malay peninsula, four on Sumatra, the other being the Nicobar islands. Scholars like Paul Wheatley have been sceptical of Rajendra's claims about the number of towns his army sacked, but most agree that a raid did take place."
---
"Says George Spencer: 'The campaign is plausible because it fits the Chola pattern of compulsive expansion in this period, fits the aim of Rajendra to exceed his father's accomplishments and fits the persistent Chola need to locate fresh sources of plunder or tribute.' There is evidence to show that the king of Kambujadesa (modern Cambodia) sent a chariot to the Chola, probably to appease him so that his strategic attention does [sic] not extend further than the Malay peninsula."
---

http://sikhtimes.com/news_062903a.html

by Idéfix Mon May 07, 2012 1:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:The "copy-paste as counterargument" Method is still going strong, I see.

Here is Genghis Khan's most striking and direct achievement.

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries

1 66 million Second World War 20C

2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C

3
40 million Genghis Khan 13C

4 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
Genghis accomplished in the 13th century what many countries around the world had to come together to accomplish in the 20th, when the population of the world was higher by an order or magnitude. Kudos to Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan did what Raja Raja Chola and Krishnadeva Raya did--only he did things on a grander scale because he was a greater conqueror than the telugu and tamil kings.

He was indeed very great. Killing 40 million people takes a lot of greatness. Even Hitler could not manage that -- and he had tanks and airplanes, while poor Genghis had to make do with horses.

Genghis's descendants may have contributed some to the arts, but his own personal legacy was primarily of murder, rape and pillage. You are welcome to cite examples of works of architecture commissioned by Genghis Khan, or works of literature and the arts supported. (Not works of art that his descendants patronized under the civilizing influences of China, Persia and India).

What is it in your constitution that makes you admire murderous despots? Are you instinctively awed by authority? The more terrible the deeds, the greater your admiration for them kinda deal, is it?

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 2:06 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:The "copy-paste as counterargument" Method is still going strong, I see.

Here is Genghis Khan's most striking and direct achievement.

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries

1 66 million Second World War 20C

2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C

3
40 million Genghis Khan 13C

4 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
Genghis accomplished in the 13th century what many countries around the world had to come together to accomplish in the 20th, when the population of the world was higher by an order or magnitude. Kudos to Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan did what Raja Raja Chola and Krishnadeva Raya did--only he did things on a grander scale because he was a greater conqueror than the telugu and tamil kings.
He was indeed very great. Killing 40 million people takes a lot of greatness. Even Hitler could not manage that -- and he had tanks and airplanes, while poor Genghis had to make do with horses.

Genghis's descendants may have contributed some to the arts, but his own personal legacy was primarily of murder, rape and pillage. You are welcome to cite examples of works of architecture commissioned by Genghis Khan, or works of literature and the arts supported. (Not works of art that his descendants patronized under the civilizing influences of China, Persia and India).

What is it in your constitution that makes you admire murderous despots? Are you instinctively awed by authority? The more terrible the deeds, the greater your admiration for them kinda deal, is it?

first of all, consider the fact that the 40 million figure could be exaggerated. The wikipedia page on Genghis Khan says that Mongol campaigns may have resulted in the deaths of 40 million people. Notice the word 'may' and the word 'Mongol campaigns'.

In other words, it is possible that this possibly exaggerated figure is being arrived at by summing up all the mongol campaigns which took place over a few centuries between a region spanning from China to Russia and Eastern Europe. This is what the wikipedia page on Genghis Khan says:

Before Genghis Khan died, he assigned Ögedei Khan as his successor and split his empire into khanates among his sons and grandsons.[6] He died in 1227 after defeating the Western Xia. He was buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in Mongolia at an unknown location. His descendants went on to stretch the Mongol Empire across most of Eurasia by conquering or creating vassal states out of all of modern-day China, Korea, the Caucasus, Central Asian countries, and substantial portions of modern Eastern Europe, Russia and the Middle East. Many of these invasions resulted in the large-scale slaughter of local populations, which have given Genghis Khan and his empire a fearsome reputation in local histories.[7] Mongol campaigns may have resulted in the deaths of 40 million people.[8]

One of the reasons i admire Genghis Khan is for the same reason that many people admire Alexander the Great. In my opinion it is a sign of an inferiority complex stemming from our colonial past for an Indian to hail Alexander as Alexander the Great and admire him for being a brilliant tactician and strategist while at the same time claiming that Genghis Khan was a barbarian. After all, both Alexander and Genghis were great conquerors (with Genghis being the greater conqueror). His military innovations, like the usage of psychological warfare, would have met with approval with the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu as well as with Bhisma Pitamah who in the Shanti Parva discusses (among other things) military strategy with Yudhishtira.

The other reason why Genghis is praiseworthy is because his conquests made it possible for commercial trading to take place between the eastern and western regions of his empire. His conquests opened up a great trade route.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 2:09 pm

A map of the Mongol Empire:

Genghis Khan Mongol%20empire

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 07, 2012 2:53 pm

there's something feminine and submissive abt this hero worship of historical strongmen. I picture rashmun wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at the mughal and khan strongmen of the day while sitting on his/her haunches demurely.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 2:54 pm

"All who surrender will be spared; whoever does not surrender but opposed with struggle and dissension, shall be annihilated."
-CHINGIS KHAN, during the war with the Khwarezmian empire. Usually, Genghis kept his word, and those who did surrender were indeed spared. It is this policy that separates Genghis from other leadesr who did pointlessly kill people. Genghis killed for conquests, not for the joy of it like Tamerlane and Hitler.

http://mongolempire.4t.com/r_quotes.htm

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 3:05 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:there's something feminine and submissive abt me. I picture ~~rashmun~~ myself wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at ~~the mughal and khan strongmen of the day~~ Luke Warmus while sitting on ~~his/her~~ my haunches demurely as he turns my arse into a finely pureed pulp.

-----

For those who came in late:

propagandhi711 posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
I hope you sign up for this service.

and while you're travelling in the hinterlands of northindia in your
indiana jones outfit in an open jeep, hindutvas mistake you for a
missionary and set a match after dousing you in kerosene while yelling
"phlegmy is missionary. kill the mofo, jaihind.congrats sania, congrats sachin". as a final act of
educating the unwashed masses, you can politely enquire if they've run
out of articles and derisively suggest them to buy some, before going up
in flames. that would be ironic, yet symmetrical.

Luke Warmus posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
i love to read your fantasies about my death. they
reveal your anger and frustration, and the extent to which i've turned
your arse into a finely-pureed pulp.

..."set a match after dousing you in kerosene while yelling "phlegmy is
missionary. kill the mofo, jaihind." -- penius seetharamayya.

here's another interesting phenomenon: the connection you see between
setting a non-hindu aflame and "jai hind."

luke warmus

propagandhi711 posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
you only dream abt 'turning my arse into finely-pureed
pulp'..in the similar vein as dreaming abt my penius, homosexual pervert
that you are. you know and I know that if I ever know your identity,
you're deadmeat. yes, save this for the FBI.

I'd love to hear of your demise and misfortune, accidental or not.

Luke Warmus posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
..."homosexual pervert..." -- penius seetharamayya.

the only evidence of homosexuality seen here was the photograph you
posted of a caucasian man in a luminous green thong underwear. i assume
that was from your collection of erotic photographs of caucasian men, or
perhaps he's your homosexual lover, bruce.

"I'd love to hear of your demise and misfortune, accidental or not. --
penius seetharamayya.

just hearing you say that is entertaining.

with warm regards,

luke warmus

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/personal/tamil-nadu-280252.htm[/quote]

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 3:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:"All who surrender will be spared; whoever does not surrender but opposed with struggle and dissension, shall be annihilated."
-CHINGIS KHAN, during the war with the Khwarezmian empire. Usually, Genghis kept his word, and those who did surrender were indeed spared. It is this policy that separates Genghis from other leadesr who did pointlessly kill people. Genghis killed for conquests, not for the joy of it like Tamerlane and Hitler.

http://mongolempire.4t.com/r_quotes.htm

"Say ye unto the Khwarezmians that I am the soveign of the sunrise, and [he is] the soverign of the sunset. Let there be between us a firm treaty of friendship, amity, and peace, and let traders and caravans on both sides come and go.
-CHINGIS KHAN, to an ambassador from the Khwarezmian empire. Genghis actually wanted peace, but was compelled to go to war when the Mongol ambassadors were killed by the Persians.

http://mongolempire.4t.com/r_quotes.htm

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 3:29 pm

One of Genghis Khan's closest friends was Jamukha. Jamukha and he had sworn the sacred vow of Ande which made them blood brothers. The same Jamukha became hostile to Genghis Khan and ultimately became Genghis's most formidable enemy for some time because of a peculiar difference of opinion.

Both Jamukha and Genghis were descended of royal blood and it was mongol tradition that military commanders could only be of royal blood. In this respect, Jamukha was a traditionalist. Genghis, however, broke away from this tradition and started appointing military commanders not on the basis of their family descent but on the basis of their merit. The greatest general of Genghis, a man who was possibly a greater general than Genghis himself, was Subotei who came from a family of herdsmen. Subotei had conquered Russia and then eastern europe and was proceeding towards western europe when news reached him that Genghis was dying and so he rushed back. Otherwise the history of Europe would have been different.

The modern student of history sides with Genghis in his dispute with Jamukha.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon May 07, 2012 3:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:One of Genghis Khan's closest friends was Jamukha. Jamukha and he had sworn the sacred vow of Ande which made them blood brothers. The same Jamukha became hostile to Genghis Khan and ultimately became Genghis's most formidable enemy for some time because of a peculiar difference of opinion.

Both Jamukha and Genghis were descended of royal blood and it was mongol tradition that military commanders could only be of royal blood. In this respect, Jamukha was a traditionalist. Genghis, however, broke away from this tradition and started appointing military commanders not on the basis of their family descent but on the basis of their merit. The greatest general of Genghis, a man who was possibly a greater general than Genghis himself, was Subotei who came from a family of herdsmen. Subotei had conquered Russia and then eastern europe and was proceeding towards western europe when news reached him that Genghis was dying and so he rushed back. Otherwise the history of Europe would have been different.

The modern student of history sides with Genghis in his dispute with Jamukha.

Do you admire Hitler also ?

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 3:38 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:One of Genghis Khan's closest friends was Jamukha. Jamukha and he had sworn the sacred vow of Ande which made them blood brothers. The same Jamukha became hostile to Genghis Khan and ultimately became Genghis's most formidable enemy for some time because of a peculiar difference of opinion.

Both Jamukha and Genghis were descended of royal blood and it was mongol tradition that military commanders could only be of royal blood. In this respect, Jamukha was a traditionalist. Genghis, however, broke away from this tradition and started appointing military commanders not on the basis of their family descent but on the basis of their merit. The greatest general of Genghis, a man who was possibly a greater general than Genghis himself, was Subotei who came from a family of herdsmen. Subotei had conquered Russia and then eastern europe and was proceeding towards western europe when news reached him that Genghis was dying and so he rushed back. Otherwise the history of Europe would have been different.

The modern student of history sides with Genghis in his dispute with Jamukha.

Do you admire Hitler also ?

no i do not. Read this and learn a little history:

"All who surrender will be spared; whoever does not surrender but opposed with struggle and dissension, shall be annihilated."
-CHINGIS KHAN, during the war with the Khwarezmian empire. Usually, Genghis kept his word, and those who did surrender were indeed spared. It is this policy that separates Genghis from other leadesr who did pointlessly kill people. Genghis killed for conquests, not for the joy of it like Tamerlane and Hitler.

http://mongolempire.4t.com/r_quotes.htm

by Propagandhi711 Mon May 07, 2012 4:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:there's something feminine and submissive abt me. I picture ~~rashmun~~ myself wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at ~~the mughal and khan strongmen of the day~~ Luke Warmus while sitting on ~~his/her~~ my haunches demurely as he turns my arse into a finely pureed pulp.

-----

For those who came in late:

propagandhi711 posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
I hope you sign up for this service.

and while you're travelling in the hinterlands of northindia in your
indiana jones outfit in an open jeep, hindutvas mistake you for a
missionary and set a match after dousing you in kerosene while yelling
"phlegmy is missionary. kill the mofo, jaihind.congrats sania, congrats sachin". as a final act of
educating the unwashed masses, you can politely enquire if they've run
out of articles and derisively suggest them to buy some, before going up
in flames. that would be ironic, yet symmetrical.

Luke Warmus posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
i love to read your fantasies about my death. they
reveal your anger and frustration, and the extent to which i've turned
your arse into a finely-pureed pulp.

..."set a match after dousing you in kerosene while yelling "phlegmy is
missionary. kill the mofo, jaihind." -- penius seetharamayya.

here's another interesting phenomenon: the connection you see between
setting a non-hindu aflame and "jai hind."

luke warmus

propagandhi711 posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
you only dream abt 'turning my arse into finely-pureed
pulp'..in the similar vein as dreaming abt my penius, homosexual pervert
that you are. you know and I know that if I ever know your identity,
you're deadmeat. yes, save this for the FBI.

I'd love to hear of your demise and misfortune, accidental or not.

Luke Warmus posted Re:Tamil Nadu on 2 yrs ago
..."homosexual pervert..." -- penius seetharamayya.

the only evidence of homosexuality seen here was the photograph you
posted of a caucasian man in a luminous green thong underwear. i assume
that was from your collection of erotic photographs of caucasian men, or
perhaps he's your homosexual lover, bruce.

"I'd love to hear of your demise and misfortune, accidental or not. --
penius seetharamayya.

just hearing you say that is entertaining.

with warm regards,

luke warmus

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/personal/tamil-nadu-280252.htm

[/quote]

more cut and paste from the kajoled rashmunamma.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 07, 2012 4:09 pm

i have to say rashmun that you have an unerring ability to glorify the most venal of tyrants and despots from every era in history. i bet if you lived two hundred years from now, you'll find a way to glorify hitler.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 4:17 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have to say rashmun that you have an unerring ability to glorify the most venal of tyrants and despots from every era in history. i bet if you lived two hundred years from now, you'll find a way to glorify hitler.

you are mistaken. i abhor hitler as much as you do. But i find it hypocritical to laud Alexander as a great military strategist and tactician and simultaneously to call Genghis Khan a barbarian.

by Idéfix Mon May 07, 2012 4:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:you are mistaken. i abhor hitler as much as you do. But i find it hypocritical to laud Alexander as a great military strategist and tactician and simultaneously to call Genghis Khan a barbarian.

Has someone been lauding Alexander on SuCH? How did I miss it? Why did you suddenly embark upon the laudature of Genghis Khan?

PS: I tend to agree with Srisri on these matters. Most kings in history were tyrants. Glorifying them is a sign of servility.

PPS: Also, this abhorrence of Hitler is a result of colonial hangover -- the British demonized Hitler and you are following their lead. There are more links on the internet that the Holocaust did not happen, than that Genghis Khan was a patron of the arts. Therefore, could it be possible that that the Holocaust did not happen?

by Idéfix Mon May 07, 2012 4:34 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:there's something feminine and submissive abt this hero worship of historical strongmen. I picture rashmun wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at the mughal and khan strongmen of the day while sitting on his/her haunches demurely.

Haha. Jokes aside, I do wonder what it is that compels someone living in the 21st century to take it upon themselves to laud, glorify and praise 13th century despots whose campaigns of murder, rape and pillage killed millions and leveled cities.

by Idéfix Mon May 07, 2012 4:35 pm

Rashmun wrote:Genghis actually wanted peace, but was compelled to go to war

Same with Hitler. If only the Poles had submitted peacefully to his will, WWII wouldn't have happened. It is not Hitler's fault that the Poles were not willing to roll over and play dead.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 4:39 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Genghis actually wanted peace, but was compelled to go to war
Same with Hitler. If only the Poles had submitted peacefully to his will, WWII wouldn't have happened. It is not Hitler's fault that the Poles were not willing to roll over and play dead.

The difference is that the rules had changed from the time of Genghis Khan to the time of Hitler and political conquests were no longer considered acceptable. On the other hand, in Genghis's time political conquests were considered acceptable and even praiseworthy. What Genghis Khan did was also done by Krishnadeva Raya and Rajaraja chola, albeit on a grander scale. If Krishnadeva Raya and Rajaraja chola heard about the conquests of Genghis Khan it is safe to say that they would have expressed admiration for Genghis.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 4:44 pm

panini press wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:there's something feminine and submissive abt this hero worship of historical strongmen. I picture rashmun wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at the mughal and khan strongmen of the day while sitting on his/her haunches demurely.
Haha. Jokes aside, I do wonder what it is that compels someone living in the 21st century to take it upon themselves to laud, glorify and praise 13th century despots whose campaigns of murder, rape and pillage killed millions and leveled cities.

Had Genghis Khan been a Gult, one feels that both Propa and PP woul have been defending him.

by Idéfix Mon May 07, 2012 4:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:there's something feminine and submissive abt this hero worship of historical strongmen. I picture rashmun wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at the mughal and khan strongmen of the day while sitting on his/her haunches demurely.
Haha. Jokes aside, I do wonder what it is that compels someone living in the 21st century to take it upon themselves to laud, glorify and praise 13th century despots whose campaigns of murder, rape and pillage killed millions and leveled cities.

Had Genghis Khan been a Gult, one feels that both Propa and PP woul have been defending him.

Are you suggesting that you are a Mongol? Or do you merely wish you were one?

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 4:50 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:there's something feminine and submissive abt this hero worship of historical strongmen. I picture rashmun wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at the mughal and khan strongmen of the day while sitting on his/her haunches demurely.
Haha. Jokes aside, I do wonder what it is that compels someone living in the 21st century to take it upon themselves to laud, glorify and praise 13th century despots whose campaigns of murder, rape and pillage killed millions and leveled cities.

Had Genghis Khan been a Gult, one feels that both Propa and PP woul have been defending him.
Are you suggesting that you are a Mongol? Or do you merely wish you were one?

i am happy being what i am. Moreover, i am not cliquish. Yes, i am suggesting that you are cliquish.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 4:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:there's something feminine and submissive abt this hero worship of historical strongmen. I picture rashmun wearing fine mughal clothing such as a pure silk purdah, chamak chamak glittering lehengas, long dramatic kajal and casting seductive sidelong glances at the mughal and khan strongmen of the day while sitting on his/her haunches demurely.
Haha. Jokes aside, I do wonder what it is that compels someone living in the 21st century to take it upon themselves to laud, glorify and praise 13th century despots whose campaigns of murder, rape and pillage killed millions and leveled cities.

Had Genghis Khan been a Gult, one feels that both Propa and PP woul have been defending him.
Are you suggesting that you are a Mongol? Or do you merely wish you were one?

i am happy being what i am. Moreover, i am not cliquish. Yes, i am suggesting that you are cliquish.

i am also suggesting that you suffer from an inferiority complex in the event that you do not have a poor opinion of Alexander who was no different from Genghis Khan.
I seem to recall the poster Krishnan praising Alexander on Sulekha CH on a few occasions and you very certainly did not go around whining about Alexander killing so many people.

by Guest Mon May 07, 2012 5:40 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:you are mistaken. i abhor hitler as much as you do. But i find it hypocritical to laud Alexander as a great military strategist and tactician and simultaneously to call Genghis Khan a barbarian.
Has someone been lauding Alexander on SuCH? How did I miss it? Why did you suddenly embark upon the laudature of Genghis Khan?

PS: I tend to agree with Srisri on these matters. Most kings in history were tyrants. Glorifying them is a sign of servility.

PPS: Also, this abhorrence of Hitler is a result of colonial hangover -- the British demonized Hitler and you are following their lead. There are more links on the internet that the Holocaust did not happen, than that Genghis Khan was a patron of the arts. Therefore, could it be possible that that the Holocaust did not happen?

i don't recall anyone lauding Alexander on this forum. But the poster Krishnan had very definitely lauded Alexander on sulekha CH (for being a great military strategist and tactician) and while i do not recall whether you joined him in praising Alexander, you certainly did not go around whining about the fact that Alexander ended up killing so many people.

With respect to hitler only recently you were claiming that if second world war would not have taken place hitler would have been remembered as a great ruler. when i pointed out that hitler had started ethnic cleansing of jews before the second world war even began you preferred not to respond to my statement.

by Sponsored content