Genghis Khan

>>835635
>muh religious tolerance

>he killed about 20% of the world population but maybe he was a good guy?

Neutral, desu

Chaotic evil

Literally fucked over the world for teh lolz. Any good that came out of his conquest was byproduct.

>>835670
>for teh lolz

You mean for plunder right? Genghis Khan was as "evil" as just about any barbarian steppe culture. He was savage and ruthless to his enemies. Genghis just happened to be more successful than his predecessors.

If the Parthians managed to do the same things that Genghis did, they would have come down into history in the same manner.

>>835728
>commits large scale acts of genocide
>"But if someone else did it then they would be just as bad"

>>835824
There's literally nothing wrong with that statement. If Hitler had killed as many people as Mao in an identical manner, that is if he were Mao and not Hitler, he and Mao would be just as bad as each other.

File: 1388430537129.gif (367KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 500x281px

>>835836
>There's literally nothing wrong with that statement.

>>835840
What's wrong with it?

>>835635
Genghis Khan was a barely-coherent fount of animalistic violence, who tore across Asia with his horde of barbarians laying waste to every village in his path, killing the men, raping the women, eating the children, killing and raping the livestock, burning everything down then raping and eating the ashes, etc. Anything that fits under a modern person's notion of "pillage," Khan did while laughing a guttural, jackal-like laugh.

File: 1341416751384.jpg (769KB, 2849x3474px) Image search: [Google]

769KB, 2849x3474px

>>835843

Is rape, genocide, and plundering good?

>>835824
The whole point of that post is that Genghis wasn't especially evil. He was especially successful. Man you are a special kind of retarded.

>>835865
>Claim 1 (>>835728)
The actions of Genghis Khan have the same moral value no matter who commits them in a given possible world.
>Claim 2 (>>835824)
The same claim, in greentext

What's wrong with the claim?

Someone directly responsible for the death of 40 million people (in the line of the highest estimates) is hardly morally correct outside of his own perspective. Either way, he is still a highly succesful and highly respected individual, because he pursued something and imposed his will on everyone, even though it's hardly "acceptable" or "morally justifiable", doesn't mean it isn't an impressive feat, though, you could claim it's actually even more "evil", since the way he justifies the means to an end, don't even create a better future for the majority, unlike others, like Mao, Hitler, Stalin who supposedly committed attrocities for a utilitarian purpose, who they believed would be better for their socities, Genghis Khan just did all these attrocities for his own purpose and destiny, not for a greater good.

>>835943
>not for a greater good
Why do people just assume Tengri doesn't exist?

>>835635
>Miley Cyrus, saint or sinner?

>>835949
Well, in my opinion tengriism isn't classifiable as a force of good, and isn't as justifiable as political ideologies, because in itself I believe at the very least, politics address issues grounded in tangible and objective reality. You could argue religions are far more important because they treat issues in a superior plane of existence, but I rather ground myself in facts I can actually trust, and not suppositions. Even if you do disregard this, I can still claim even tengriism was imposed by Genghis Khan for his own purposes, because it made him a Godly figure, representative of Tengri himself on our plane of existance.

>>836021
>politics address issues grounded in tangible and objective reality.
Why does Bernie Sanders claim everyone needs free college?

>>835880
>Genghis wasn't especially evil
Not how modern society views him.

>>836028
I'm not very informed of american politics, but I suppose he claims that's a good decision because a highly educated society not only benefits everyone in it, because in itself is better to live with other educated people, but also makes sense as an economic strategy because educated people generate more money, which through taxation keeps the very system running with what I suppose, he levels out as advantageous and economically sound, because there's actually more money for the Goverment to spend, since more money is being generated.

I personally think this is a simplistic view on the subject, although it does sound logical when simply put on paper.

>>835635
Which God?
Aren't they taoists or something?

>>836076
tengri

The problem with Temujin is that his actions were what you would expect from a beast. So I can see why he blurs the line between neutral or evil. I personally think he's evil since he's supposed to be human, which is expected to have more empathy than something like a wolf.

>>835836
I've lost it. I've fucking lost my mind

>>835649
>he killed about 20% of the world population

Nah, 2% maybe.

Where are the proofs?

no

t. Dan Carlin

>>835635
He himself admits he's an arsehole in the Secret History of the Mongols, the official history of the Mongol empire that he personally commissioned scribes to write.

File: BN-CT939_0514gr_GS_20140513175839[1].jpg (73KB, 553x553px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 553x553px

Genghis Khan killed an estimated 40 million people, resulting in a man-made climate change. The Mongol invasion effectively cooled the planet, scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

>>835635
Doesn't matter since he couldn't hold his empire for long. They all eventually assimilated in Iranian culture, well as far as Iran goes.

He was a force for himself. A true ubermensch.

>>837386

>>835649 might have been factoring in black death and deaths his dynasty led to

How much destruction of knowledge and advancement was Genghis Khan responsible for? Particularly regarding the Middle-East.

>>838525
>he a good boy he dindu nuffin he was going to church n'all baka he religiously tolerant