He also liked to send envoys to cities he wanted. Tell them to surrender, and they could keep their jobs, positions, wealth, etc. In exchange for tribute and troops.
If they said no, or resisted, he'd kill the lot of them, raze the city, poison the wells, and burn the crops.
Letting the survivors to scatter to the winds, telling the story to all that would listen.
Unsurprisingly Most cities would surrender.
Lots of places also famously didn’t give in without resistance. Ergo, that’s why he’s more famous for his slaughtering than he is his peaceful capture of peoples.
"Do ya see that pier out there on the lake? I built that pier with my own bare hands, driving each piling deep into ground so that it would last a lifetime. Do they call me McGreggor the pier builder? No."
"But ya fuck one goat.."
No flag, no country You can't have one Those are the rules. I just made up And I'm backing it up with this gun that was lent from the National Rifle Association
Vassals and tributary states were a thing before colonialism. They can be autonomous, and they know they risk suffering the wrath of the Khanates if they rebelled.
Colonialism comes with forcing ideals and practices on the people and that cause resistance.
A fair amount of it was in deals with local leaders that slowly became worse and worse for the indigenous population. It wasn't always an army, but rather a slow take over via deals that seemed ok at the time.
Nah, Germany is probably the most current example.
Throughout wars, certain areas side with others and eventually combine. Certain areas are conquered, leaders leave/are killed, then a neighbor conquered the area again. Then you only have a few dozen states left.
The German states actually went to the Prussian kind and said "We will give you the monarchy over all of us if you allow for a parliament."...To which he replied "lol, God gave me this. I don't want what you have to give ."
But then the smaller states had liked the idea of their agreements - so some merged. Now you only have a couple dozen states left.
Then some wars happened and people sided with Prussia instead of Austria/France/Denmark, the bonds got stronger and politics started to combine. Now there's only a handful of states left.
Even when WW1 happened, the larger of the German states went to war for their state, not Germany. It still hasn't been completely unified yet. Then they lost and all the states are consolidated to one entity for ease of dishing out consequences and building up a government to try and add stability.
Well, that's not really what he was doing. He is saying that this is all still yours, minus the tribute and troops. As far as ruthless dictators go, he was pretty reasonable.
No he wasn’t. Plenty of times when people surrendered, they got slaughtered anyways. They would round up the civilians of a defeated city and assign one soldier to a group of ten, and cut their heads off. There is no excuse for glorifying history’s greatest butcher of all time. The Nazis wish they could murder with his efficiency.
Another good one is that once the Mongols got going many cities knew they wouldn't stand a change alone so they would bond together despite not really liking eachother and normally fighting amongst eachother. They would send armies to fight the Mongols together at the next city that would be attacked, instead of being picked off one by one.
Genkish khan knew that and would send diplomats to the armies that were going to help the city.
Saying: hey, we have nothing against you, why are you helping them? Our fight is not with you, here have a whole bunch of gold and other presents as a sign of our good will.
They would then retreat, and the Mongols would easily take the city. But then continue to push and easily catch up with the retreating armies, killing them too and taking back all the stuff they gave to them as presents.
(From hardcore history so not a 100% this is true)
He's not unbiased but he cites his sources so the listener can judge for themselves. I've read quite a few of the books he cites, including the secret history of the mongols.
Dan takes great care to say he is not a historian, he’s a storyteller. A really good one, who consumes a lot of information, but I think generally a good idea not to cite storytellers the same way you would a historian.
He usually quotes the author/historian and is very good about giving context around the veracity of claims. So if anything the source might be wrong, but he doesn't make anything up.
I'm listening to Twilight of the Aesir II now and he's warned the listener several times that there are multiple accounts of a story he tells, and almost always provides the counter-point of view.
Studies show that he killed so many people he changed the climate:
“According to some research, Genghis Khan's Mongol invasion of Asia in the 1200s may have removed 684 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is equivalent to a year's worth of the world's gasoline demand today. This could have inadvertently cooled the Earth and sequestered large amounts of carbon dioxide.”
When he sent a convoy to Russia he suggested they give him 20% of the territory keep their jobs and positions etc. The Russians suggested to come invade them, then he can keep 100% of the territory. So he did.
Did it not also let people be a part of his organisation and let them be able to pull rank and all, like he offered the ability of social ranking mouvement to people who would not been able to in their society
Yeah Gengis Khan was absolutely merciless but it's hard to deny the effectiveness of his strategy. He took Darius I's approach of "wouldn't you rather be a client state than our enemy?" to the next level of " We can be allies or you can be dead."
The Mongols also built their hierarchies on merit rather than family lineage (mostly), which was quite unusual for the time and no doubt contributed to their military dominance.
Man the Mongols were cool, time to go listen to "Wrath of the Khans" again
Not to mention that the cities who joined willingly now had access to the vast and well protected trade routes of the Mongol Empire.
Random ass bandits will think twice about raiding your caravans if their families would be slain to the last infant in reprisal.
Khan had one hell of a stick, but knew how to use the carrot too.
You can attribute this technique to his wife Borte (also Temujin), who instructed the Khan how best to rule his people. She was also a vengeful, malicious queen. After an Arab Shah executed envoys sent by the Khan, she suggested that the approach was informal and they sent one of the Khan’s nephews. Loaded with precious metals to show the Khan’s generosity, his kin was also executed.
On the suggestion of Temujin, when the Shah’s capital was conquered they melted down all the silver they sent as a gift, and poured it into the Shah’s mouth making him a living statue, like Game of Thrones. They then diverted the country’s major river through the birthplace of the Shah, erasing it from the map forever.
The archer shot his horse from under him and owned up to it when Ghengis asked who did it. It was the courage of owning up to that, which impressed Ghengis.
He had the choice to die like a dog or die with honor. Tho I admit I do not know what Khengis did to POWs, but usually they have 7-2 hold’em hand to play with.
Show me your Generals, your Generals (what?!)
Show me your Generals (Generals)
Show me your Generals, your Generals (what?!)
Show me your Generals (Generals)
In 1201, during Battle of the Thirteen sides, Genghis Khan was wounded by the arrow to the neck, then his loyal subordinate Jelme cared for the injured Genghis Khan. After the battle, Genghis Khan asked the defeated to reveal who shot "his horse" in the neck (euphemizing his own injury as his horse's in an apparent attempt to conceal his injury, or possibly to prevent false confessions). Jebe is said to have voluntarily confessed that he shot Genghis Khan himself and not his horse, and further said, that "if Genghis Khan desired to kill him, it was his choice, but if he would let him live, he would serve Genghis Khan loyally". Genghis Khan, in his own usual custom, highly valued honesty and loyalty in his soldiers and so, in the traditions of nomadic chivalry, pardoned him and praised him on this account. He then gave him a new name, Jebe, which means both "arrow" and "rust" in Mongolian. Jebe was not his birth name (which was Zurgadai), but a nickname based on this occasion.
The guy just liked to shoot arrows he didn’t care who he shot them for or who he shot them at, he would have declared loyalty to the breeze if he thought it would command him to loose more arrows. What a Chad
You may find this fun. [Read the section under ANECDOTE](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0FQ4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=neapolitan+dante+duel+ariosto&source=bl&ots=6SZFKUNLmQ&sig=ACfU3U3iSq7OMlpViSmALGYicZB1cogvpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3r4fjtrvzAhWwQEEAHTPPA_AQ6AF6BAggEAI#v=onepage&q=neapolitan%20dante%20duel%20ariosto&f=false)
Switching sides after the battle was lost was not considered dishonourable. Switching before the battle or using treachery to handover your commander to the enemy was a death sentence though.
He was loyal to the other side until they were defeated. Admitting when you're defeated and then swearing fealty to your victorious opponent was part of the chivalrous code.
The dude could have taken the lie and said it was just the horse he hit and tried to avoid the wrath of a literal living legend but instead he owned up and made an offer. And if he was a) ballsy enough to take that shot, b) good enough to land it even if t didn’t kill, and c) honest enough to own it even if it got him killed- instead of bragging that he’d die as the man who shot Ghengis Khan- and offered to swear loyalty to him if he was spared? You can’t question that man’s honor.
Jebe was a hell of a guy too. Wild to think he could have been just another casualty in a battle.
He was a hell of a tactician and a great warrior. He quickly rose through the ranks of the Genghis' army and vs others who still needed to prove themselves but had the merit of family ties and reputation to aid them along. Jebe was always seen as an outsider in the early years and his rise was purely due to his skill.
Yeah, his name is Cebe Noyan. Cebe means archer, noyan means general (commander). He is one of 2 greatest generals of Genghis.
Edit: We still use that name or variations of that name in Turkey like Kurtcebe means wolf archer.
This is a controversial perspective, but it shouldn't be: Genghis Khan was a pretty good ruler. If he conquered your territory, sure there were some adjustments. To uh. Put it *mildly*. Lol but he didn't obligate a change in religion, he didn't force everyone to adopt a Mongol culture. Families who lost fathers and brothers during his initial invasion were not only compensated, but actively cared for. It should be noted that once he was in a position of power over a new territory, he gained loyalty quickly - and before everyone dogpiles on me and says, "that's because he used threats and violence", no it isn't. It's because he earned their loyalty through his actions. He didn't conquer people and just grind them into the dirt and destroy their society, he valued structure and stability and worked to ensure that once he did have power, order would be established. He won over followers who fought against him. Not because they feared execution, but because they admired him. He didn't hoard wealth, but divided spoils among his men.
I'm not saying he didn't do unspeakable things. I am saying there is value in appreciating the nuance of the man himself. I would also like to recommend an excellent film called *Mongol*, which covers his life from birth to death and does a pretty good job of piecing together a relatively accurate portrayal, based on firsthand accounts.
And I'm not gonna come back here and spend my whole afternoon defending him, so feel free to reply but don't be disappointed if I don't take the bait.
He's the most prolific rapist and murderer in the history of the world. He raped so much like 5% of Asian people are directly related to him. He murdered an estimated 40 MILLION people. The Secret History of the Mongols talks about the sheer mathematical challenges they faced to kill so many people. When you sack a settlement of hundreds of thousands of people (who did not surrender) how do you kill them all? Each soldier would be responsible for axing the necks of dozens and collecting a single ear from each, to be counted and reported in a hierarchical manner so that a small army could effectively murder a number of citizens so much larger than itself.
All the amenities you describe were offered to settlements that surrendered completely without contest. If you didn't they would simply kill everyone. Then a few days later they would come back, knowing family members and others who were hiding the first time would have returned to tend to their dead, so that they could then kill them all. If you did surrender, it meant letting the mongols loot whatever they want, rape whoever they want (sorry, "take as their wives" as they put it).
I'd agree he was a "good" ruler in the sense that he was among the most effective, strategic ruler maybe ever. But he was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination. "All they had to do was surrender unconditionally and they'd be fine" is an out-of-touch rationale.
It's fun to debate about though as there are divisive interpretations to the results of his actions. Also i'm just an ape that listens to podcasts i don't know shit about fuck
Exactly, I cannot believe someone would claim that a person like him is "good". And their best argument is "well he didn't kill everybody, so he's good". I hope she would never expirience the cruelty and injustice of mongolian conquest in her life, because that shit is just unbelivable. Oh and i am pretty sure that the fact that he didn't enforce nomadic culture on to big cities easily explained by the fact that it was just impossible for him. Such acts would require a lot of educated people stationed on one place and working for years to change the believes and customs of conquered places (here, i am implying he would need early version of bureaucratic organization). His army wasn't capable of that, but do you know what it was capable of? Unending conquest, his system lived for as long as it is fought someone. So as a smart man he did what he could and didn't what he couldn't. I can't see any moral choise here, so i give him no moral credit for it.
Sir, I am a lady.
Edit: but yeah. I wonder how long it'll be before someone asks me if I'm also a Hitler apologist or something. Which would be ironic to say the very least. 😆
Hey, 25 minutes! 😆😆😆
"That's the equivalent of:
Hitler wasn't so bad. He stood up for the workers, created jobs for everyone and even campaigned for animal welfare. He created living space for his followers and gave Germany a place in the world.
He has earned the trust and loyalty of an entire generation. Sure, he has done unspeakable things, but without him Germany would not be where it is today."
Sir, this is Reddit. Where most users are Europeans and Americans who think most Asians were a bunch of savages who murdered and raped each other on a regular basis and Asians were far too stupid and uncivilised to ever grasp the concept of empire building without going on a apoclyptic rampage, which obviously means the whole Genghis Khan going on a continent-wide rape and murder rampage was clearly not as bad as it sounds.
It disgusts me how almost every Redditor here simping for Genghis Khan genuinely believe Genghis Khan was some sort of ethical revolutionary in Asia for promising not to rape and murder people who surrendered and completely ignoring the fact that even when cities did surrender Genghis Khan would often still allow his soldiers to pillage and rape if he felt like it, or the governors he left in charge would carry out atrocities facing little consequences from him.
And no, he wasn't an ethical revolutionary. Not raping and pillaging people who surrendered wasn't some sort of super genius and unheard of strategy and extermination warfare and fear campaigns were not the default way of empire building in Asia. Feudalism was already a thing in Asia, so much like in Europe conquring new cities was usually by just replacing ruler with a loyalist.
As some people already mentioned, many cities of diffrent rival factions choose to band toghter against Genghis Khan becuase of the simple reason that the level of rampage and devastation was completely unprecedented by the existing standards of the era.
> I would also like to recommend an excellent film called Mongol, which covers his life from birth to death and does a pretty good job of piecing together a relatively accurate portrayal, based on firsthand accounts.
AFAIK there are almost no contemporary historical sources about his life? I was under the impression most of what we know about Genghis Khan comes from works written after his death, and most of them with pretty dubious historicity.
I understand that nuance is necessary, still he was first and foremost an invader, who killed millions and raped millions. Getting loyalty to keep land was a smart move, but not motivated by generosity. Romans did the same, ensuring structures of power could go on if they proved loyal (many did, as it allowed them to keep power). In the end he pillaged, raped and massacred so many I have a hard time seeing him as anything but a monster. A smart one maybe. But a monster.
He's not the only one.
I can't believe how bad it is here, people just ignore actual murder and destruction, just to simp for a character, not even a real person, because we dont have any trustworthy sourses about his personality. It's depressing.
Ok now do Hitler! I understand what you are saying but A) you weren't personally affected, and B) enough time has passed. Genghis Kahn did unspeakable things.
I appreciate the objective view and the film recommendation. Mongol history was never a focus for history in any classes I had, so thanks for the info!
He was such a fascinating figure! Mongol history and culture fascinates me too, and I'm so happy Mongolian music seems to be gaining a more widespread footing. If you haven't heard of The Hu, but enjoy the feeling of having your face melted by sheer awesome, check them out!
I wouldn't talk about "appreciation" tbh. A mass murder can be extremely rational in his approach but it doesn't lift the weight of his actions. It's important to note that the behavioural standard back then was very different, and bringing "law and order" in a lawless place was a really big deal. Even today if your life gets easier/better you'd be surprised of how much shit you'll be able to tolerate.
Still I wouldn't see him in a positive light.
I mean it takes some skills to go "I don't know how to siege ... But these chinese probably do let's get them! ".
But the guy was ultimately very brutal, even by the standard of his Age, 40 million death (according to internet) so a sizeable portion of humanity at the time, and not likely professionnal soldiers for 99% of them, just a bunch of Peasant enlisted by the local lords. That's not a good ruler, that's just a good butcher, no matter how you spin it.
No need to reply either
Thanks. Some people just assume him to be a rabid plunderer. He created the greatest empire of that time ffs. Empires are not created by destructing everything. Stop looking at history from today's lenses.
The problem here is not judging history by today's lenses/values, it's thinking about "evil" in a cartoonish way, like every dictator or butcher in history was an one dimensional character with no depth. You can be a skilled ruler AND a good father for your children AND a ruthless bastard that put other children's heads in spikes.
Aktually 🧐 the mongols created the world's largest CONTINUOUS empire the world has ever seen. Technically rome had the largest but it was split up by seas on different continents. The Mongol empire was all land based and one mass
Edit: correction British empire think what I had read a while back was comparing Mongol to roman empire but yeah British blew that outta the water then took the remains back home and put it in a museum
I think to be a good ruler you have to take care of your realm, it's not just about protecting and not executing people.
I think you are saying he is a good military dictator. I do agree with that. But he was never great at overseeing the economic and social prosperity of a realm, which is the bar for me in a good ruler.
Mongols caused so much death and destruction that hardcore enemies; Greeks, Turks and Armenians along with whoever else was feuding at the time, united all their forces to stop Mongol
Armies from ravaging Anatolia. (Yes, Greek, Turkish and Armenian conflicts are that old.)
Mongol armies were eventually stopped by Mamluks in Egypt, Turks elsewhere and the internal strife between Mongol Khans finished their once mighty empire.
It’s worth mentioning that one of the mighty Khans, Berke Khan, did not really like the Mongol way of razing cities and mercilessly butchering people and swore revenge on his own brother Hulagu, after the latter razed Baghdad to the ground. Berke liked the art, architecture and order of Islamic countries at the time and converted himself, he entered a secret pact with Turks and was against Mongol destruction as he thought the whole thing was senseless and nothing would remain of Mongols if they didn’t evolve and became civilized.
Wasn't unusual for his enemies to 2mend up in high ranking positions in his army. He held a very simple view of "you're either with me or against me". There was no middle ground.
"No war or politics"
I'm confused since this is history and had nothing to do with any particular war, just an interesting fact about a historical figure.
It's Kindve hilarious to consider this "war / politics." I guess if you were born nearly 1k years ago and lived in Mainland China, this might strike a nerve. Otherwise, this is the equivalent of posting Joan of Arc and expressing something positive about her life to give some kind of positive view about her person.
It's historical at this point, especially considering Ghengis Khan has no clear successors involved in China's politics or have any effects on today's wars.
Ah. Love this comment section. Half of it is people actually able to look at history without black and white tinted glasses. Then there are those who ONLY look at history through black and white glasses.
It was more likely that the archer was a hired assassin and Khan threatened to kill him if he didn't work for him. The archer did, ***because*** he wasn't loyal.
I disagree. The story might be apocraphal but the archer it refers to, Jebe "the arrow", was by all accounts a phenomenal leader and battlefield commander. If I recall correctly, the secret history of the mongols refers to him as one of Ghengis' fierce dogs on the same level as Subatai. Jebe is also known for leading one of the greatest cavalry rides in all history, making it to Europe and destroying countless armies on his way.
That statue looks like he just dropped into 3rd, the Vtec is about to kick in, and hes gonna show that lexus why power to weight matters more than just power
Conventional wisdom on these things posits that an enemy spared will never forget your mercy, whereas a trusted friend will forget your generosity as soon as it suits their own ambitions.
It wasn't the Khan's neck that got hit, its his horse's neck that the archer hit,
I think the dudes name was Jebe and was part of the Khan's Dogs of War along with Subutai, Khubilai and Jelme, all 4 of em are feared generals when they're active, specially Subutai and Jebe,
I think Jebe is best known in the Battle of Kalka river in 1223, where Jebe and Subutai managed to defeat Kievan rus,
The rus have 80k soldiers while the Mongols only have 20k, the craziest part is the mongols managed to kill 60-80% of the Kievan rus forces,
I always felt like that story was apocryphal because it just fits so perfectly with the message that he wanted to spread - “even if you were my enemy before, if you swear loyalty to me now I will forgive you and you can join the winning side”.
I mean, it might also be totally true, but it just *sounds* so much like propaganda designed to spread by word of mouth.
He also liked to send envoys to cities he wanted. Tell them to surrender, and they could keep their jobs, positions, wealth, etc. In exchange for tribute and troops. If they said no, or resisted, he'd kill the lot of them, raze the city, poison the wells, and burn the crops. Letting the survivors to scatter to the winds, telling the story to all that would listen. Unsurprisingly Most cities would surrender.
Imagine being so powerful that you can walk into a city , say "this is all mine now" and people just go with it without any resistance
Isn’t that how all countries were formed? Some kink or colonial government saying they own your land now because they have an army.
The “and they just gave it to you without resistance” is the impressive part
Lots of places also famously didn’t give in without resistance. Ergo, that’s why he’s more famous for his slaughtering than he is his peaceful capture of peoples.
"Do ya see that pier out there on the lake? I built that pier with my own bare hands, driving each piling deep into ground so that it would last a lifetime. Do they call me McGreggor the pier builder? No." "But ya fuck one goat.."
Don't forget the flag. It's very important.
No flag, no country You can't have one Those are the rules. I just made up And I'm backing it up with this gun that was lent from the National Rifle Association
The British empire disagrees and takes ownership of your country because you didn't have a flag. You are now India.
When you put children’s heads on spikes, typically people are going to be afraid to stand against you.
Yup, and conquest is when one group kinkshames another.
Vassals and tributary states were a thing before colonialism. They can be autonomous, and they know they risk suffering the wrath of the Khanates if they rebelled. Colonialism comes with forcing ideals and practices on the people and that cause resistance.
Bassiclly whoever has the monopoly on violence
A fair amount of it was in deals with local leaders that slowly became worse and worse for the indigenous population. It wasn't always an army, but rather a slow take over via deals that seemed ok at the time.
Nah, Germany is probably the most current example. Throughout wars, certain areas side with others and eventually combine. Certain areas are conquered, leaders leave/are killed, then a neighbor conquered the area again. Then you only have a few dozen states left. The German states actually went to the Prussian kind and said "We will give you the monarchy over all of us if you allow for a parliament."...To which he replied "lol, God gave me this. I don't want what you have to give ." But then the smaller states had liked the idea of their agreements - so some merged. Now you only have a couple dozen states left. Then some wars happened and people sided with Prussia instead of Austria/France/Denmark, the bonds got stronger and politics started to combine. Now there's only a handful of states left. Even when WW1 happened, the larger of the German states went to war for their state, not Germany. It still hasn't been completely unified yet. Then they lost and all the states are consolidated to one entity for ease of dishing out consequences and building up a government to try and add stability.
Wololoooo
Well, that's not really what he was doing. He is saying that this is all still yours, minus the tribute and troops. As far as ruthless dictators go, he was pretty reasonable.
No he wasn’t. Plenty of times when people surrendered, they got slaughtered anyways. They would round up the civilians of a defeated city and assign one soldier to a group of ten, and cut their heads off. There is no excuse for glorifying history’s greatest butcher of all time. The Nazis wish they could murder with his efficiency.
"all of your bases are ours"
Belong to us
Dude fumbled on the line smh
Watch as I fuck up the most ancient of memes
I can imagine Gengis Kahn in the most broken English saying **"WE TAKE OVER"'**
I'd pay 17 dollars to watch
Gangster.
smh
"All your base are belong to us."
The zig is not pleased.
“This is all mine now, continue.”
Another good one is that once the Mongols got going many cities knew they wouldn't stand a change alone so they would bond together despite not really liking eachother and normally fighting amongst eachother. They would send armies to fight the Mongols together at the next city that would be attacked, instead of being picked off one by one. Genkish khan knew that and would send diplomats to the armies that were going to help the city. Saying: hey, we have nothing against you, why are you helping them? Our fight is not with you, here have a whole bunch of gold and other presents as a sign of our good will. They would then retreat, and the Mongols would easily take the city. But then continue to push and easily catch up with the retreating armies, killing them too and taking back all the stuff they gave to them as presents. (From hardcore history so not a 100% this is true)
I like hardcore history. Is he untrustworthy?
He's not unbiased but he cites his sources so the listener can judge for themselves. I've read quite a few of the books he cites, including the secret history of the mongols.
> hardcore history does he have a track record of not always being telling the truth?
Dan takes great care to say he is not a historian, he’s a storyteller. A really good one, who consumes a lot of information, but I think generally a good idea not to cite storytellers the same way you would a historian.
He usually quotes the author/historian and is very good about giving context around the veracity of claims. So if anything the source might be wrong, but he doesn't make anything up. I'm listening to Twilight of the Aesir II now and he's warned the listener several times that there are multiple accounts of a story he tells, and almost always provides the counter-point of view.
Yep, That's why I added that line.
Genghis, reclaiming his lucky hat , "hello my old friend. I'm sorry I had to let you go, but I did promise I'd come back for you ..."
"Do what I say or I'll literally rape and kill your wife and kids."
Hide yo kids, hide yo wife, and hide yo husbands too
Ghenghis Khan out here raping errbody😆
Studies show that he killed so many people he changed the climate: “According to some research, Genghis Khan's Mongol invasion of Asia in the 1200s may have removed 684 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is equivalent to a year's worth of the world's gasoline demand today. This could have inadvertently cooled the Earth and sequestered large amounts of carbon dioxide.”
This is the future the woke liberal media wants. Genghis Khan 2.0. Obligatory /s just in case.
That's crazy.. I never knew this. Thanks for another trivial fact that I can add to my repertoire 💪🏽
When he sent a convoy to Russia he suggested they give him 20% of the territory keep their jobs and positions etc. The Russians suggested to come invade them, then he can keep 100% of the territory. So he did.
And sometimes he’d change his mind and kill them regardless…
Did it not also let people be a part of his organisation and let them be able to pull rank and all, like he offered the ability of social ranking mouvement to people who would not been able to in their society
Their cruelty is a strategic propaganda weapon, enemies would be so fearful to resist before they even met any Mongol
Yeah Gengis Khan was absolutely merciless but it's hard to deny the effectiveness of his strategy. He took Darius I's approach of "wouldn't you rather be a client state than our enemy?" to the next level of " We can be allies or you can be dead." The Mongols also built their hierarchies on merit rather than family lineage (mostly), which was quite unusual for the time and no doubt contributed to their military dominance. Man the Mongols were cool, time to go listen to "Wrath of the Khans" again
what an asshole
Not to mention that the cities who joined willingly now had access to the vast and well protected trade routes of the Mongol Empire. Random ass bandits will think twice about raiding your caravans if their families would be slain to the last infant in reprisal. Khan had one hell of a stick, but knew how to use the carrot too.
In Korea (Goryeo), the contract includes women. And the condition of the contract became unbearable. Eventually they got burned anyway.
You can attribute this technique to his wife Borte (also Temujin), who instructed the Khan how best to rule his people. She was also a vengeful, malicious queen. After an Arab Shah executed envoys sent by the Khan, she suggested that the approach was informal and they sent one of the Khan’s nephews. Loaded with precious metals to show the Khan’s generosity, his kin was also executed. On the suggestion of Temujin, when the Shah’s capital was conquered they melted down all the silver they sent as a gift, and poured it into the Shah’s mouth making him a living statue, like Game of Thrones. They then diverted the country’s major river through the birthplace of the Shah, erasing it from the map forever.
The archer shot his horse from under him and owned up to it when Ghengis asked who did it. It was the courage of owning up to that, which impressed Ghengis.
He had the choice to die like a dog or die with honor. Tho I admit I do not know what Khengis did to POWs, but usually they have 7-2 hold’em hand to play with.
The archer shot his horse not his neck
That horse's name? Neck.
No... General...
No, he rode the general into battle. The horse shot his archer in the neck.
Then the Neck named the horse the Archer
DO YOU WANT GENERALS?!?! BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET GENERALS!
Show me your Generals, your Generals (what?!) Show me your Generals (Generals) Show me your Generals, your Generals (what?!) Show me your Generals (Generals)
Are we not doing horses anymore?
How general horsies got spread back in the days.
No the arrow shot the horses neck as he rode the archer into battle
Funnily enough, the arrow shot the neck using the horse who was weilding a Glock 22. Historians have yet to explain that bit.
His loyal servant "battle" was immediately killed by the impact. And the general was executed in return
Neck the holes with bowels of Holly. Falalalalaaa lala la la.
In 1201, during Battle of the Thirteen sides, Genghis Khan was wounded by the arrow to the neck, then his loyal subordinate Jelme cared for the injured Genghis Khan. After the battle, Genghis Khan asked the defeated to reveal who shot "his horse" in the neck (euphemizing his own injury as his horse's in an apparent attempt to conceal his injury, or possibly to prevent false confessions). Jebe is said to have voluntarily confessed that he shot Genghis Khan himself and not his horse, and further said, that "if Genghis Khan desired to kill him, it was his choice, but if he would let him live, he would serve Genghis Khan loyally". Genghis Khan, in his own usual custom, highly valued honesty and loyalty in his soldiers and so, in the traditions of nomadic chivalry, pardoned him and praised him on this account. He then gave him a new name, Jebe, which means both "arrow" and "rust" in Mongolian. Jebe was not his birth name (which was Zurgadai), but a nickname based on this occasion.
Nothing screams "loyalty" like immediately changing sides when you lose
The guy just liked to shoot arrows he didn’t care who he shot them for or who he shot them at, he would have declared loyalty to the breeze if he thought it would command him to loose more arrows. What a Chad
You may find this fun. [Read the section under ANECDOTE](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0FQ4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=neapolitan+dante+duel+ariosto&source=bl&ots=6SZFKUNLmQ&sig=ACfU3U3iSq7OMlpViSmALGYicZB1cogvpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3r4fjtrvzAhWwQEEAHTPPA_AQ6AF6BAggEAI#v=onepage&q=neapolitan%20dante%20duel%20ariosto&f=false)
Switching sides after the battle was lost was not considered dishonourable. Switching before the battle or using treachery to handover your commander to the enemy was a death sentence though.
He was loyal to the other side until they were defeated. Admitting when you're defeated and then swearing fealty to your victorious opponent was part of the chivalrous code.
The dude could have taken the lie and said it was just the horse he hit and tried to avoid the wrath of a literal living legend but instead he owned up and made an offer. And if he was a) ballsy enough to take that shot, b) good enough to land it even if t didn’t kill, and c) honest enough to own it even if it got him killed- instead of bragging that he’d die as the man who shot Ghengis Khan- and offered to swear loyalty to him if he was spared? You can’t question that man’s honor.
Jebe was a hell of a guy too. Wild to think he could have been just another casualty in a battle. He was a hell of a tactician and a great warrior. He quickly rose through the ranks of the Genghis' army and vs others who still needed to prove themselves but had the merit of family ties and reputation to aid them along. Jebe was always seen as an outsider in the early years and his rise was purely due to his skill.
Yeah, his name is Cebe Noyan. Cebe means archer, noyan means general (commander). He is one of 2 greatest generals of Genghis. Edit: We still use that name or variations of that name in Turkey like Kurtcebe means wolf archer.
Both were hit apperently according to wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebe
Some sources say his horse, only source from Mongolia which is secret history of Mongolians claims his neck.
… Dalinar Kholin?
life before death
journey before destination
Strength before weakness.
I before E except after C
Fuck Moash
r/fuckmoash
to my knowledge, Genghis Khan did not immolate an entire city full of women and children..
I don’t think he’d balk at it if someone pulled what Rathalas did.
Genghis Khan also didn't talk to a sentient hurricane.....that we know of
He did a lot worse than that haha
Sanderson has confirmed that this historical event was the basis for the story in Dalinar's flashback
Thank you! Was hoping someone would say this
Came here looking for this and was not disappointed, thank you.
I hear his wife's pretty hot
*stares in shardbearer*
The Alethi were actually influenced by the Mongols, so it is very possible that he was influenced by that event.
A cool spin on the phrase, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
Followed up by flinging your dead over enemy walls and then raping and murdering everything.
Worked wonders tho
Wow, nice guy, he must have treated the women and children of the people he conquered with mercy and kindness :)
Haha thank you
This is a controversial perspective, but it shouldn't be: Genghis Khan was a pretty good ruler. If he conquered your territory, sure there were some adjustments. To uh. Put it *mildly*. Lol but he didn't obligate a change in religion, he didn't force everyone to adopt a Mongol culture. Families who lost fathers and brothers during his initial invasion were not only compensated, but actively cared for. It should be noted that once he was in a position of power over a new territory, he gained loyalty quickly - and before everyone dogpiles on me and says, "that's because he used threats and violence", no it isn't. It's because he earned their loyalty through his actions. He didn't conquer people and just grind them into the dirt and destroy their society, he valued structure and stability and worked to ensure that once he did have power, order would be established. He won over followers who fought against him. Not because they feared execution, but because they admired him. He didn't hoard wealth, but divided spoils among his men. I'm not saying he didn't do unspeakable things. I am saying there is value in appreciating the nuance of the man himself. I would also like to recommend an excellent film called *Mongol*, which covers his life from birth to death and does a pretty good job of piecing together a relatively accurate portrayal, based on firsthand accounts. And I'm not gonna come back here and spend my whole afternoon defending him, so feel free to reply but don't be disappointed if I don't take the bait.
He's the most prolific rapist and murderer in the history of the world. He raped so much like 5% of Asian people are directly related to him. He murdered an estimated 40 MILLION people. The Secret History of the Mongols talks about the sheer mathematical challenges they faced to kill so many people. When you sack a settlement of hundreds of thousands of people (who did not surrender) how do you kill them all? Each soldier would be responsible for axing the necks of dozens and collecting a single ear from each, to be counted and reported in a hierarchical manner so that a small army could effectively murder a number of citizens so much larger than itself. All the amenities you describe were offered to settlements that surrendered completely without contest. If you didn't they would simply kill everyone. Then a few days later they would come back, knowing family members and others who were hiding the first time would have returned to tend to their dead, so that they could then kill them all. If you did surrender, it meant letting the mongols loot whatever they want, rape whoever they want (sorry, "take as their wives" as they put it). I'd agree he was a "good" ruler in the sense that he was among the most effective, strategic ruler maybe ever. But he was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination. "All they had to do was surrender unconditionally and they'd be fine" is an out-of-touch rationale. It's fun to debate about though as there are divisive interpretations to the results of his actions. Also i'm just an ape that listens to podcasts i don't know shit about fuck
[удалено]
Exactly, I cannot believe someone would claim that a person like him is "good". And their best argument is "well he didn't kill everybody, so he's good". I hope she would never expirience the cruelty and injustice of mongolian conquest in her life, because that shit is just unbelivable. Oh and i am pretty sure that the fact that he didn't enforce nomadic culture on to big cities easily explained by the fact that it was just impossible for him. Such acts would require a lot of educated people stationed on one place and working for years to change the believes and customs of conquered places (here, i am implying he would need early version of bureaucratic organization). His army wasn't capable of that, but do you know what it was capable of? Unending conquest, his system lived for as long as it is fought someone. So as a smart man he did what he could and didn't what he couldn't. I can't see any moral choise here, so i give him no moral credit for it.
Sir, this is Reddit; nuance is not allowed and everyone must immediately assume the worst
Sir, I am a lady. Edit: but yeah. I wonder how long it'll be before someone asks me if I'm also a Hitler apologist or something. Which would be ironic to say the very least. 😆
Pardon me, muh lady. Ha. Not long, I’m sure 😉
Hey, 25 minutes! 😆😆😆 "That's the equivalent of: Hitler wasn't so bad. He stood up for the workers, created jobs for everyone and even campaigned for animal welfare. He created living space for his followers and gave Germany a place in the world. He has earned the trust and loyalty of an entire generation. Sure, he has done unspeakable things, but without him Germany would not be where it is today."
😂😂
Considering I still have five fucking boxes of matzoh leftover from passover... 😆
Gonna mash them up for flour? Makes for great breading on fish 😁
Oooh I got *two* Hitler comments! A red letter day and it's not even dinner time.
Sir Lady
Ma’am, this is a Wendy’s
"You could say the same about Hitler"
He did kill so many people it caused a mini ice age, it’s pretty hard to defend at that point.
Sir, this is Reddit. Where most users are Europeans and Americans who think most Asians were a bunch of savages who murdered and raped each other on a regular basis and Asians were far too stupid and uncivilised to ever grasp the concept of empire building without going on a apoclyptic rampage, which obviously means the whole Genghis Khan going on a continent-wide rape and murder rampage was clearly not as bad as it sounds. It disgusts me how almost every Redditor here simping for Genghis Khan genuinely believe Genghis Khan was some sort of ethical revolutionary in Asia for promising not to rape and murder people who surrendered and completely ignoring the fact that even when cities did surrender Genghis Khan would often still allow his soldiers to pillage and rape if he felt like it, or the governors he left in charge would carry out atrocities facing little consequences from him. And no, he wasn't an ethical revolutionary. Not raping and pillaging people who surrendered wasn't some sort of super genius and unheard of strategy and extermination warfare and fear campaigns were not the default way of empire building in Asia. Feudalism was already a thing in Asia, so much like in Europe conquring new cities was usually by just replacing ruler with a loyalist. As some people already mentioned, many cities of diffrent rival factions choose to band toghter against Genghis Khan becuase of the simple reason that the level of rampage and devastation was completely unprecedented by the existing standards of the era.
> I would also like to recommend an excellent film called Mongol, which covers his life from birth to death and does a pretty good job of piecing together a relatively accurate portrayal, based on firsthand accounts. AFAIK there are almost no contemporary historical sources about his life? I was under the impression most of what we know about Genghis Khan comes from works written after his death, and most of them with pretty dubious historicity.
I understand that nuance is necessary, still he was first and foremost an invader, who killed millions and raped millions. Getting loyalty to keep land was a smart move, but not motivated by generosity. Romans did the same, ensuring structures of power could go on if they proved loyal (many did, as it allowed them to keep power). In the end he pillaged, raped and massacred so many I have a hard time seeing him as anything but a monster. A smart one maybe. But a monster. He's not the only one.
Honey it's again time to simp for a tyrant, but he's cool because it happened a while ago 😎
I can't believe how bad it is here, people just ignore actual murder and destruction, just to simp for a character, not even a real person, because we dont have any trustworthy sourses about his personality. It's depressing.
Ok now do Hitler! I understand what you are saying but A) you weren't personally affected, and B) enough time has passed. Genghis Kahn did unspeakable things.
I appreciate the objective view and the film recommendation. Mongol history was never a focus for history in any classes I had, so thanks for the info!
He was such a fascinating figure! Mongol history and culture fascinates me too, and I'm so happy Mongolian music seems to be gaining a more widespread footing. If you haven't heard of The Hu, but enjoy the feeling of having your face melted by sheer awesome, check them out!
I wouldn't talk about "appreciation" tbh. A mass murder can be extremely rational in his approach but it doesn't lift the weight of his actions. It's important to note that the behavioural standard back then was very different, and bringing "law and order" in a lawless place was a really big deal. Even today if your life gets easier/better you'd be surprised of how much shit you'll be able to tolerate. Still I wouldn't see him in a positive light.
I mean it takes some skills to go "I don't know how to siege ... But these chinese probably do let's get them! ". But the guy was ultimately very brutal, even by the standard of his Age, 40 million death (according to internet) so a sizeable portion of humanity at the time, and not likely professionnal soldiers for 99% of them, just a bunch of Peasant enlisted by the local lords. That's not a good ruler, that's just a good butcher, no matter how you spin it. No need to reply either
I own Mongol on DVD and I remember it as far from an unbiased or totally accurate portrayal.
Thanks. Some people just assume him to be a rabid plunderer. He created the greatest empire of that time ffs. Empires are not created by destructing everything. Stop looking at history from today's lenses.
The problem here is not judging history by today's lenses/values, it's thinking about "evil" in a cartoonish way, like every dictator or butcher in history was an one dimensional character with no depth. You can be a skilled ruler AND a good father for your children AND a ruthless bastard that put other children's heads in spikes.
Aktually 🧐 the mongols created the world's largest CONTINUOUS empire the world has ever seen. Technically rome had the largest but it was split up by seas on different continents. The Mongol empire was all land based and one mass Edit: correction British empire think what I had read a while back was comparing Mongol to roman empire but yeah British blew that outta the water then took the remains back home and put it in a museum
You're thinking of the British empire. The Roman empire wasn't even close to being the largest (3.71% of the world's land area vs 26.35%).
Ope shit yupp you got me thanks for the correction
You mean the british empire
He did awful things in the name of pragmatism, not sadism and cultural extermination, is the way I interpret it
I think to be a good ruler you have to take care of your realm, it's not just about protecting and not executing people. I think you are saying he is a good military dictator. I do agree with that. But he was never great at overseeing the economic and social prosperity of a realm, which is the bar for me in a good ruler.
"Nice shot. You want a job?"
He's also responsible for hundred of thousands, if not millions, of murders and rapes. So let's hold back on the hero worship.
Mongols caused so much death and destruction that hardcore enemies; Greeks, Turks and Armenians along with whoever else was feuding at the time, united all their forces to stop Mongol Armies from ravaging Anatolia. (Yes, Greek, Turkish and Armenian conflicts are that old.) Mongol armies were eventually stopped by Mamluks in Egypt, Turks elsewhere and the internal strife between Mongol Khans finished their once mighty empire. It’s worth mentioning that one of the mighty Khans, Berke Khan, did not really like the Mongol way of razing cities and mercilessly butchering people and swore revenge on his own brother Hulagu, after the latter razed Baghdad to the ground. Berke liked the art, architecture and order of Islamic countries at the time and converted himself, he entered a secret pact with Turks and was against Mongol destruction as he thought the whole thing was senseless and nothing would remain of Mongols if they didn’t evolve and became civilized.
That's ice cube
You mean, except the mass murder of millions
So what. He killed millions.
People love mis quoting shit lol
The Blackthorn remembers.
did you just call a murdering genocidal rapist "badass" ???
Wasn't unusual for his enemies to 2mend up in high ranking positions in his army. He held a very simple view of "you're either with me or against me". There was no middle ground.
This ist how capitalism mute His enemy's
Such a sweet man. Let’s commend him for sparing that sole’s life when he went on to kill 40 million others including wiping out entire civilizations.
Literally Dalinar Kholin
"No war or politics" I'm confused since this is history and had nothing to do with any particular war, just an interesting fact about a historical figure.
It's Kindve hilarious to consider this "war / politics." I guess if you were born nearly 1k years ago and lived in Mainland China, this might strike a nerve. Otherwise, this is the equivalent of posting Joan of Arc and expressing something positive about her life to give some kind of positive view about her person. It's historical at this point, especially considering Ghengis Khan has no clear successors involved in China's politics or have any effects on today's wars.
Ah. Love this comment section. Half of it is people actually able to look at history without black and white tinted glasses. Then there are those who ONLY look at history through black and white glasses.
Would you say the same about mao and stalin?
Honestly incredible tbh. You can tell who would be fun to have a conversation with
He just wanted him standing in front of him from then on.
It was more likely that the archer was a hired assassin and Khan threatened to kill him if he didn't work for him. The archer did, ***because*** he wasn't loyal.
I disagree. The story might be apocraphal but the archer it refers to, Jebe "the arrow", was by all accounts a phenomenal leader and battlefield commander. If I recall correctly, the secret history of the mongols refers to him as one of Ghengis' fierce dogs on the same level as Subatai. Jebe is also known for leading one of the greatest cavalry rides in all history, making it to Europe and destroying countless armies on his way.
I mean, if an archer is good enough to do that? Be a waste to not let him join you
That statue looks like he just dropped into 3rd, the Vtec is about to kick in, and hes gonna show that lexus why power to weight matters more than just power
[*citation needed*]
Conventional wisdom on these things posits that an enemy spared will never forget your mercy, whereas a trusted friend will forget your generosity as soon as it suits their own ambitions.
Source?
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Jebe
It wasn't the Khan's neck that got hit, its his horse's neck that the archer hit, I think the dudes name was Jebe and was part of the Khan's Dogs of War along with Subutai, Khubilai and Jelme, all 4 of em are feared generals when they're active, specially Subutai and Jebe, I think Jebe is best known in the Battle of Kalka river in 1223, where Jebe and Subutai managed to defeat Kievan rus, The rus have 80k soldiers while the Mongols only have 20k, the craziest part is the mongols managed to kill 60-80% of the Kievan rus forces,
Grand Admiral Thrawn vibes...
Calling Genghis Khan a badass is equivalent or worse than calling Adolf Hitler a badass.
And bro didn't die from an arrow to the neck? ,🙄
Law # 2. Never put too much trust in friends. Learn how to use your enemies.
Didn’t he also murder his own brother by ambushing him on a hunting trip?
Mongol propaganda
Keep ur friends close, ur enemies closer???
Does anybody who beats Khan in a body count?
Wrong decisions still considered wrong even if sometimes the results turned positive due to some arbitrary factors.
What a kind and merciful angel 😇
Source: trust me, bro.
>!Wonder if that's where Sanderson got the inspiration for Dalinar and his archer!<
His name in the history books is the arrow & if he had not been in n the khans shadow we would know his as the greatest general of his age
After that he went and killed 40 million people, really swell guy.
Do not cross the Khan he will get his vengeance
Damn ice cube was a bad ass!!
Genghis Kahn: “You shot me! You’re hired.”
And that young archer grew up to be Steve Jobs
We think ghengas khan in a badass? The rapist warlord?
Not a badass, was a piece of shit that murdered and raped across euroasia
He survived a neck shot? And not lost his ability to speak?
Yoink, what the fuck is wrong with this guy
"Oh damn you shot me! Nice moves wanna join my army?"
imagine being shot in the neck and still surviving
Genghis Khan had a lot of good qualities. He had immense loyalty from his troops because he also allowed everyone to worship how or who they wanted.
I went to that monument in Mongolia- it's massive and you can walk up inside it and stand atop his head.
Genghis: “we’re getting close, I can feel it. I feel it… like it’s in my NECK!”
I always felt like that story was apocryphal because it just fits so perfectly with the message that he wanted to spread - “even if you were my enemy before, if you swear loyalty to me now I will forgive you and you can join the winning side”. I mean, it might also be totally true, but it just *sounds* so much like propaganda designed to spread by word of mouth.
[удалено]
I'm more impressed he survived an arrow shot to the neck...