Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

by Guest Fri May 11, 2012 12:07 am

One of the first to re-evaluate Genghis Khan was "an unlikely candidate", the Indian statesman Jawaharlal Nehru. In a series of letters on world history written to his daughter from British jails in the 1930s, he wrote "Chengiz is, without doubt, the greatest military genius and leader in history.... Alexander and Caesar seem petty before him."[15]

According to Weatherford, during World War II Russian and German military tacticians looked to Mongol models for cavalry strategy for managing their mobile artillery units. After great effort, a German translation of the Secret History of the Mongols was prepared in 1941, but it could not be distributed because the stored copies of the books were destroyed during an Allied air raid. However, the idea of blitzkrieg is claimed to be loosely modelled on highly mobile Mongol tactics. Even the Russian strategy of letting the Germans penetrate deep into Russia where they became too thinly spread, is claimed to be based on Subutai's tactics at the Battle of the Kalka River, though the scales involved are utterly different (p. 263).

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

-----

Subutai (Mongolian: Сүбээдэй, Sübeedei; Classic Mongolian: Sübügätäi or Sübü'ätäi; Tsubodai 1176–1248) was the primary military strategist and general of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.[1] He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.

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

by Guest Fri May 11, 2012 12:14 am

Pandit Nehru on Genghis Khan:

Many people think that because they were nomads they must have been barbarians. But this is a mistaken idea. They did not know, of course, many of the city arts, but they had developed a way of life of their own and had an intricate organization. If they won great victories on the field of battle, it was not because of their numbers, but because of their discipline and organization. And above all it was due to the brilliant captainship of Chengiz. For Chengiz is, without doubt, the greatest military genius and leader in history. Alexander and Caesar seem petty before him. Chengiz was not only himself a great commander, but he trained many of his generals and made them brilliant leaders. Thousands of miles away from their homelands, surrounded by enemies and a hostile population, they carried on victorious warfare against superior numbers.

http://www.mongolianculture.com/Jawaharlal.html

by truthbetold Fri May 11, 2012 12:25 am

Nehru's admiration of great khan may have been due to phisiological reasons. While babur is a known descendent of khan motilal may have been undiscovered grandson of khan. According to gene poolnstudies khan left quite a long trail. In fact a knowledgeable source told me that khan may have seeded the largest pool ever by a single individual.

by Guest Fri May 11, 2012 12:43 am

by Guest Fri May 11, 2012 8:22 pm

Glimpses of World History, a book written by Jawaharlal Nehru
in 1934, is a panoramic sweep of the history of humankind. It is a
collection of 196 letters on world history written from various prisons
in British India between 1930–1933. The letters were written to his young daughter Indira, and were meant to introduce her to world history.^[1]

The letters start off with one he sends to his daughter on her
birthday. He says he is sad about not being able to send her any
"material" gift from prison, so he would try to give her something he
can "afford", a series of letters from his heart.

Written from prison, where he had no recourse to reference books or a library but his personal notes, Glimpses of World History
contains the history of humankind from 6000 BC to the time of writing
of the book. It covers the rise and fall of great empires and
civilizations from Greece and Rome to China and West Asia; great figures such as Ashoka and Genghis Khan, Gandhi and Lenin; wars and revolutions, democracies and dictatorships.

He wrote about many cultures throughout the globe in detail because,
as he himself said, he didn't like the way history was taught in schools
where it was confined to the history of a single country and that too
narrow, and he wanted his daughter Priyadarshini to know why people did
what they did. It was possible only through knowing the history of the
whole world.

The letters are written in informal language, with the contemporary
and personal events too mentioned. They reflect the world view of Nehru,
and his grasp of history. It could be considered as one of the first
attempts at historiography from a non-Eurocentric angle.

The book is comparable to The Outline of History by H. G. Wells. The New York Times described it as

. . . one of the most remarkable books ever written . . . Nehru makes
even H.G.Wells seem singularly insular . . . One is awed by the breadth
of Nehru's culture.^[2]

In particular, his chapter on Genghis Khan and the Mongol invasion
runs counter to dominant European views of the time. Prefacing his
introduction to the Mongol empire, which was practically as large as the British empire and lasted as long, he said:

"It would be foolish not to recognize the greatness of Europe. But it would be equally foolish to forget the greatness of Asia."

And he goes on to state:

"Genghis is, without doubt, the greatest military genius and leader in history.... Alexander and Caesar seem petty before him."

According to Jack Weatherford,^[3] this was possibly the first re-evaluation of the Mongol empire since the 18th century.

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

by Kayalvizhi Fri May 11, 2012 9:29 pm

Mr. Nehru's History of "India" includes only one page of the history of Tamil Nadu (which he considers is part of India). Ignorant Hindians,

by Guest Fri May 11, 2012 9:46 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:Mr. Nehru's History of "India" includes only one page of the history of Tamil Nadu (which he considers is part of India). Ignorant Hindians,

by Kayalvizhi Fri May 11, 2012 10:03 pm

>> Hello. Nehru is not apeaking Tamil, It is the voice of a translator.

It is sadistic post the August 15, 1947 speech to me. It is the darkest day in our history. We burnt the Indian flag on aug 15 during college.

by MulaiAzhagi Fri May 11, 2012 10:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:Pandit Nehru on Genghis Khan:

Many people think that because they were nomads they must have been barbarians. But this is a mistaken idea. They did not know, of course, many of the city arts, but they had developed a way of life of their own and had an intricate organization. If they won great victories on the field of battle, it was not because of their numbers, but because of their discipline and organization. And above all it was due to the brilliant captainship of Chengiz. For Chengiz is, without doubt, the greatest military genius and leader in history. Alexander and Caesar seem petty before him. Chengiz was not only himself a great commander, but he trained many of his generals and made them brilliant leaders. Thousands of miles away from their homelands, surrounded by enemies and a hostile population, they carried on victorious warfare against superior numbers.

http://www.mongolianculture.com/Jawaharlal.html

===> This is coming from the man who could not prevent Chinese from invading India.

by ashdoc Sat May 12, 2012 12:55 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:
We burnt the Indian flag on aug 15 during college.

then you must be burnt alive Mad

by Guest Sun May 13, 2012 10:33 am

as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. the reason is that the mongols had no interest in writing history books; the historical chronicles were written by their enemies who greatly exaggerated the number of casualties in the mongol campaigns. for more details, one may read the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1

by FluteHolder Sun May 13, 2012 11:33 am

as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. the reason is that the mongols had no interest in writing history books;

>>>

Must be joke of the day. Show me in history that any dictator or any similar bad ruler/king written the truth (like no of ppl killed etc) or allowed others to write the truth?

by Guest Sun May 13, 2012 11:58 am

FluteHolder wrote:as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. the reason is that the mongols had no interest in writing history books;

>>>

Must be joke of the day. Show me in history that any dictator or any similar bad ruler/king written the truth (like no of ppl killed etc) or allowed others to write the truth?

genghis khan was presumably aware of the historical facts being distorted by historians hostile to him but he never made any attempt to correct the distortions because it suited him to have a fearsome reputation.

by Guest Sun May 13, 2012 5:09 pm

Geoffrey Chaucer’s Writings on Genghis Khan

The imagery of Mongol greatness received its clearest statement around
1390 by Geoffrey Chaucer, who had traveled widely in France and Italy
on diplomatic business and had a far more international perspective
than many of the people for whom he wrote. In The Canterbury Tales,
the first book written in English, the longest tale relates a romantic
and fanciful tale about the life and adventures of Genghis Khan.

This noble king was called Genghis Khan,
Who in his time was of great renown
That there was nowhere in no region
So excellent a lord in all things.
He lacked nothing that belonged to a king.
As of the sect of which he was born
He kept his law, to which that he was sworn.
And thereto he was hardy, wise, and rich,
And piteous and just, always liked;
Soothe of his word, benign, and honorable,
Of his courage as any center stable;
Young, fresh, and strong, in arms desirous
As any bachelor of all his house.
A fair person he was and fortunate,
And kept always so well royal estate
That there was nowhere such another man.
This noble king, the Tartar Genghis Khan.

http://www.mongolianculture.com/Excerpts%20Jack%20Weatherford.htm

by Idéfix Sun May 13, 2012 9:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. ... for more details, one may read the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1

As was the case with Hitler and the Nazis! This is what happens when you allow your victims to write about your glorious deeds of conquest and synthesis.

For more details on why the Holocaust is highly exaggerated and the Nazis were ordinary blokes, one may read the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Story-Lies-Ulysses-Rassinier/dp/0939484269/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1336959720&sr=8-4

by Guest Sun May 13, 2012 10:29 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. ... for more details, one may read the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1
As was the case with Hitler and the Nazis! This is what happens when you allow your victims to write about your glorious deeds of conquest and synthesis.

For more details on why the Holocaust is highly exaggerated and the Nazis were ordinary blokes, one may read the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Story-Lies-Ulysses-Rassinier/dp/0939484269/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1336959720&sr=8-4

there are innumerable sources about hitler's atrocities on the jews; in contrast, there are very few contemporary histories about genghis khan. the casualty figures given in these contemporary histories cannot be trusted because the historians who wrote these histories were typically hostile towards genghis khan because he had destroyed the armies of their kings.

by Guest Sun May 13, 2012 10:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. ... for more details, one may read the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1
As was the case with Hitler and the Nazis! This is what happens when you allow your victims to write about your glorious deeds of conquest and synthesis.

For more details on why the Holocaust is highly exaggerated and the Nazis were ordinary blokes, one may read the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Story-Lies-Ulysses-Rassinier/dp/0939484269/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1336959720&sr=8-4

there are innumerable sources about hitler's atrocities on the jews; in contrast, there are very few contemporary histories about genghis khan. the casualty figures given in these contemporary histories cannot be trusted because the historians who wrote these histories were typically hostile towards genghis khan because he had destroyed the armies of their kings.

i quote from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1

While the destruction of many cities was complete, the numbers given by historians over the years were not merely exaggerated or fanciful--they were preposterous. The Persian chronicles reported that at the Battle of Nishapur, the Mongols slaughtered the staggeringly precise number of 1,747,000. This surpassed the 1,600,000 listed as killed in the city of Herat. In more outrageous claims, Juzjani, a respectable but vehemently anti-Mongol historian, puts the total for Herat at 2,400,000....Had so many people lived in the cities of central Asia at the time, they could have easily overwhelmed the invading Mongols.

Although accepted as fact and repeated through the generations, the numbers have no basis in reality. It would be difficult to slaughter that many cows or pigs, which wait passively for their turn...Inspection of the ruins of the cities conquered by the Mongols show that rarely did they surpass a tenth of the population enumerated as casualties. The dry desert soils of these areas preserve bones for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, yet none of them has yielded any trace of the millions said to have been slaughtered by the Mongols.

by Idéfix Sun May 13, 2012 11:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:there are innumerable sources about hitler's atrocities on the jews...

all written by the enemies of the Nazis.

Rashmun wrote:in contrast, there are very few contemporary histories about genghis khan. the casualty figures given in these contemporary histories cannot be trusted because the historians who wrote these histories were typically hostile towards genghis khan because he had destroyed the armies of their kings.

Not much of a contrast, because most histories written about the Nazis were written by people who were hostile to them. Except the Holocaust Deniers, who are the right people to be believed, based on your latest thinking.

by Guest Sun May 13, 2012 11:40 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. ... for more details, one may read the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1
As was the case with Hitler and the Nazis! This is what happens when you allow your victims to write about your glorious deeds of conquest and synthesis.

For more details on why the Holocaust is highly exaggerated and the Nazis were ordinary blokes, one may read the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Story-Lies-Ulysses-Rassinier/dp/0939484269/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1336959720&sr=8-4

there are innumerable sources about hitler's atrocities on the jews; in contrast, there are very few contemporary histories about genghis khan. the casualty figures given in these contemporary histories cannot be trusted because the historians who wrote these histories were typically hostile towards genghis khan because he had destroyed the armies of their kings.

i quote from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1

While the destruction of many cities was complete, the numbers given by historians over the years were not merely exaggerated or fanciful--they were preposterous. The Persian chronicles reported that at the Battle of Nishapur, the Mongols slaughtered the staggeringly precise number of 1,747,000. This surpassed the 1,600,000 listed as killed in the city of Herat. In more outrageous claims, Juzjani, a respectable but vehemently anti-Mongol historian, puts the total for Herat at 2,400,000....Had so many people lived in the cities of central Asia at the time, they could have easily overwhelmed the invading Mongols.

Although accepted as fact and repeated through the generations, the numbers have no basis in reality. It would be difficult to slaughter that many cows or pigs, which wait passively for their turn...Inspection of the ruins of the cities conquered by the Mongols show that rarely did they surpass a tenth of the population enumerated as casualties. The dry desert soils of these areas preserve bones for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, yet none of them has yielded any trace of the millions said to have been slaughtered by the Mongols.

From the same book:

The army of Genghis Khan...deviated from standard practices of the time in an important and surprising way. The Mongols did not torture, mutilate, or maim. War during that time was often a combat in terror, and other contemporary rulers used the simple and barbaric tactic of instilling terror and horror into people through public torture or gruesome mutilation....

When the Byzantine Christian emperor Basil defeated the Bulgarians in 1014 he had fifteen thousand Bulgarian war captives blinded...When the Christian crusaders took cities such as Antoch in 1098 and Jerusalem in 1099, they slaughtered the Jews and Muslims without regard for age or gender, but merely because of religion....

Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who ranks as one of Germany's greatest historical and cultural heroes, best exemplified the use of terror in the West. When he tried to conquer the Lombard city of Cremona in the north of modern Italy in 1160, he instituted an escalating series of violent acts of terror. His men beheaded their prisoners and played with their heads outside the city walls, kicking them like balls. The defenders of the Cremona then brought out their German prisoners on the city walls and pulled their limbs off in front of their comrades. The Germans gathered more prisoners and executed them in a mass hanging. The city officials responded by hanging the remainder of their prisoners on top of the city walls....The Germans then gathered captive children and strapped them into their catapults, which were normally used to batter down walls and break through gates. With the power of these great siege machines, they hurled the living children at the city walls.

By comparison with the terrifying acts of civilized armies of the era, the Mongols did not inspire fear by the ferocity or cruelty of their acts so much as by their speed and efficiency with which they conquered and their seemingly total disdain for the lives of the rich and the powerful...The Mongol..campaign was more noteworthy for its unprecedented military success against powerful armies and seemingly impregnable cities than for its bloodlust or ostentatious use of public cruelty.

by Guest Mon May 14, 2012 12:07 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:there are innumerable sources about hitler's atrocities on the jews...
all written by the enemies of the Nazis.

Rashmun wrote:in contrast, there are very few contemporary histories about genghis khan. the casualty figures given in these contemporary histories cannot be trusted because the historians who wrote these histories were typically hostile towards genghis khan because he had destroyed the armies of their kings.
Not much of a contrast, because most histories written about the Nazis were written by people who were hostile to them. Except the Holocaust Deniers, who are the right people to be believed, based on your latest thinking.

consider the following quote again:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1

While the destruction of many cities was complete, the numbers given by historians over the years were not merely exaggerated or fanciful--they were preposterous. The Persian chronicles reported that at the Battle of Nishapur, the Mongols slaughtered the staggeringly precise number of 1,747,000. This surpassed the 1,600,000 listed as killed in the city of Herat. In more outrageous claims, Juzjani, a respectable but vehemently anti-Mongol historian, puts the total for Herat at 2,400,000....Had so many people lived in the cities of central Asia at the time, they could have easily overwhelmed the invading Mongols.

Although accepted as fact and repeated through the generations, the numbers have no basis in reality. It would be difficult to slaughter that many cows or pigs, which wait passively for their turn...Inspection of the ruins of the cities conquered by the Mongols show that rarely did they surpass a tenth of the population enumerated as casualties. The dry desert soils of these areas preserve bones for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, yet none of them has yielded any trace of the millions said to have been slaughtered by the Mongols.

in your opinion, how many people were killed by the mongols in Herat? some contemporary persian historians say 1,600,000 of Herat's inhabitants were killed while the the contemporary historian Juzjani puts the figure at 2,400,000. should we accept the lower figure or the higher figure?

by Kayalvizhi Mon May 14, 2012 9:04 am

It is like Hindian history books do not say a word about Tamil Nadu anti-Hindi agitations (especially the 1965) in history of Modern India. These books have pages and pages praising Lal Bagadur Sastri but no word on how many he killed in 1965 Anti-Hindi agitation.

by Idéfix Mon May 14, 2012 11:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:in your opinion, how many people were killed by the mongols in Herat? some contemporary persian historians say 1,600,000 of Herat's inhabitants were killed while the the contemporary historian Juzjani puts the figure at 2,400,000. should we accept the lower figure or the higher figure?

In my opinion, it is not possible to answer that question precisely and accurately. The same sorts of arguments about precise body counts are used by Holocaust Deniers and apologists for the Khmer Rouge. What is undeniable is that the Mongols sacked entire cities and systematically slaughtered their populations.

by Guest Mon May 14, 2012 11:33 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:in your opinion, how many people were killed by the mongols in Herat? some contemporary persian historians say 1,600,000 of Herat's inhabitants were killed while the the contemporary historian Juzjani puts the figure at 2,400,000. should we accept the lower figure or the higher figure?
In my opinion, it is not possible to answer that question precisely and accurately. The same sorts of arguments about precise body counts are used by Holocaust Deniers and apologists for the Khmer Rouge. What is undeniable is that the Mongols sacked entire cities and systematically slaughtered their populations.

in my opinion it is idiotic to compare something that happened in the 20th century to things that happened in the 11th or 12th century.

by Idéfix Mon May 14, 2012 11:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:in my opinion it is idiotic to compare something that happened in the 20th century to things that happened in the 11th or 12th century.

But it not idiotic to justify one's actions in the 21st century using the excuse that eminent people in the 6th century used to do something similar.

by Guest Mon May 14, 2012 11:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:as i had suspected, the number of people believed to have died because of genghis khan's campaigns is highly exaggerated. ... for more details, one may read the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1
As was the case with Hitler and the Nazis! This is what happens when you allow your victims to write about your glorious deeds of conquest and synthesis.

For more details on why the Holocaust is highly exaggerated and the Nazis were ordinary blokes, one may read the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Story-Lies-Ulysses-Rassinier/dp/0939484269/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1336959720&sr=8-4

there are innumerable sources about hitler's atrocities on the jews; in contrast, there are very few contemporary histories about genghis khan. the casualty figures given in these contemporary histories cannot be trusted because the historians who wrote these histories were typically hostile towards genghis khan because he had destroyed the armies of their kings.

i quote from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336919469&sr=8-1

While the destruction of many cities was complete, the numbers given by historians over the years were not merely exaggerated or fanciful--they were preposterous. The Persian chronicles reported that at the Battle of Nishapur, the Mongols slaughtered the staggeringly precise number of 1,747,000. This surpassed the 1,600,000 listed as killed in the city of Herat. In more outrageous claims, Juzjani, a respectable but vehemently anti-Mongol historian, puts the total for Herat at 2,400,000....Had so many people lived in the cities of central Asia at the time, they could have easily overwhelmed the invading Mongols.

Although accepted as fact and repeated through the generations, the numbers have no basis in reality. It would be difficult to slaughter that many cows or pigs, which wait passively for their turn...Inspection of the ruins of the cities conquered by the Mongols show that rarely did they surpass a tenth of the population enumerated as casualties. The dry desert soils of these areas preserve bones for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, yet none of them has yielded any trace of the millions said to have been slaughtered by the Mongols.

From the same book:

The army of Genghis Khan...deviated from standard practices of the time in an important and surprising way. The Mongols did not torture, mutilate, or maim. War during that time was often a combat in terror, and other contemporary rulers used the simple and barbaric tactic of instilling terror and horror into people through public torture or gruesome mutilation....

When the Byzantine Christian emperor Basil defeated the Bulgarians in 1014 he had fifteen thousand Bulgarian war captives blinded...When the Christian crusaders took cities such as Antoch in 1098 and Jerusalem in 1099, they slaughtered the Jews and Muslims without regard for age or gender, but merely because of religion....

Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who ranks as one of Germany's greatest historical and cultural heroes, best exemplified the use of terror in the West. When he tried to conquer the Lombard city of Cremona in the north of modern Italy in 1160, he instituted an escalating series of violent acts of terror. His men beheaded their prisoners and played with their heads outside the city walls, kicking them like balls. The defenders of the Cremona then brought out their German prisoners on the city walls and pulled their limbs off in front of their comrades. The Germans gathered more prisoners and executed them in a mass hanging. The city officials responded by hanging the remainder of their prisoners on top of the city walls....The Germans then gathered captive children and strapped them into their catapults, which were normally used to batter down walls and break through gates. With the power of these great siege machines, they hurled the living children at the city walls.

By comparison with the terrifying acts of civilized armies of the era, the Mongols did not inspire fear by the ferocity or cruelty of their acts so much as by their speed and efficiency with which they conquered and their seemingly total disdain for the lives of the rich and the powerful...The Mongol..campaign was more noteworthy for its unprecedented military success against powerful armies and seemingly impregnable cities than for its bloodlust or ostentatious use of public cruelty.

From the same book:

Those cities that surrendered to the Mongols at first found their treatment so mild and benign, in comparison with the horrible stories that circulated, that they naively doubted the abilities of the Mongols in other areas as well. After surrendering, a large number of the cities waited obediently until the Mongols had passed well beyond their country, and then revolted. Since the Mongols only left few officials in charge and stationed no military detachment to guard a city, the inhabitants misinterpreted the Mongol withdrawal as weakness and presumed that the main Mongol army would never return that way. For these cities, the Mongols showed no mercy; they returned quickly to the rebels and destroyed them utterly. An annihilated city could not revolt again.

One of the worst slaughters was unleashed on the citizens of Omar Khayyam's home city of Nishapur. The residents revolted against the Mongols, and in the ensuing battle an arrow fired from walls of the city killed Genghis Khan's son-in-law Tokuchar. In revenge for the revolt and as a lesson to other cities, Genghis allowed his widowed daughter, who was pregnant at that time, to administer whatever revenge she wished upon the captured city. She reportedly decreed death for all, and in April 1221, the soldiers carried out her command.

by Guest Tue May 15, 2012 12:01 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:in my opinion it is idiotic to compare something that happened in the 20th century to things that happened in the 11th or 12th century.
But it not idiotic to justify one's actions in the 21st century using the excuse that eminent people in the 6th century used to do something similar.

there is no harm in learning and teaching others the methods of debating adopted by the greats of Indian philosophy. But comparing the actions of hitler and pol pot etc. to genghis khan and the mongols is definitely idiotic. genghis khan and the mongols should be judged according to the norms of fighting existing in the 11th and 12th century AD, and not by something that happened in the 20th century. In my opinion, the irrational hatred for genghis khan and the mongols that some people seem to possess smacks of racism.

by Sponsored content

Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan

Re: Pandit Nehru was a great admirer of Genghis Khan