Do you think that Genghis Khan is one of the most misunderstood leaders in history...

Do you think that Genghis Khan is one of the most misunderstood leaders in history? I say this because it's a common idea that he was a blood thirsty war monger when things like that were very common in those days

1. HOW DOES THE WIDESPREADNESS, AND THE PREVALENCE, OF BRUTALITY IN HIS TIME MAKE HIM ANY LESS OF A "BLOODTHIRSTY WARMONGER", ACCORDING TO YOU?

2. BRUTALITY IS JUST AS WIDESPREAD AND PREVALENT NOW AS IT WAS IN HIS TIME, BUT NOW THE CAPABILITY FOR DESTRUCTION, AND DISHONESTY REGARDING BRUTALITY, ARE INFINITELY GREATER.

so what if it was common? In india public defecation is common

Definitely. I've read up on how he manages his troops and armies, and they're quite advanced. Genghis Khan was quite liberal/modernist/universal in how he treated religion. He had respect for great men of wisdom from all religions he encountered. He had qualms about certain religions imposing certain restrictions on diet and such (muslim). He would quite regularly invite many religious scholars from all types(taoist, confusionist, buddhist, christian, islam, shamans,etc) and have them debate (this tradition continued on to his legacy (atleast for the non-muslims)).

His conscription rule prohibited the religious people of all kinds on religious/sacred grounds.

The blood thirsty wars are basically due to mongols introducing the eastern warfare to the west and the foreigness of mongols creating a stacking effect.

Dude can you post in any other way except ALLCAPS?

Seriously it makes you sound like a screaming retard even if sometimes (like now) your points are good

Because that was the standard of the times? You can't judge a society from hundreds of years ago with morals today

Misunderstood by whom? The world has always known the other side of the story i.e. the truth. In his lifetime he was admired and respected from Portugal to Japan. It's well known that the death toll was fabricated by jealous Muslims and Chinese and this account is accepted by SJWs and such today but by no means is it a consensus.

As for myself, I defend him and the Mongols in every thread about them because it's just the truth and people are lying about the Mongols to this day because of jealousy over their alphahood.

If it wasn't for him, there wouldn't even be a Taj Mahal.

ETHICOMORAL VALUES ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT ABSOLUTE; WHAT IS "GOOD", AND WHAT IS "EVIL", REMAIN THE SAME THROUGH TIME.

...

If good and evil are absolute, then why do people think the masses and hordes couldn't see that what Genghis did was wrong? Clearly he wasn't the devil because he was very open about it all, otherwise they would've overthrown him. And don't say Mongols didn't have values as they practiced three or four religions at the time.

Check, freaking, mate. He wasn't okay for his time, that's progressive Whig shit. He was great for all time. Yeah, I went there.

>Good and Evil are absolutes
No, they're amorphous words that others use in their time to describe things that are good and bad, but down the line these things change

>If good and evil are absolute, then why do people think the masses and hordes couldn't see that what Genghis did was wrong?

BECAUSE MOST WERE ALSO "EVIL", AND THE REST WERE ETHICOMORALLY DEFICIENT, SO THEY JUST DID WHAT OTHERS DID WITHOUT THOUGHT.

>Clearly he wasn't the devil...

WHEN DID I CLAIM THAT HE WAS "THE DEVIL"?

HE WAS AN "EVIL" HUMAN.

>... because he was very open about it all, otherwise they would've overthrown him.

NOT WHEN ALL THOSE WHO FOLLOWED HIM WERE ALSO "EVIL", WITH EGOTISTIC INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN, WHICH THEY COULD SATISFY BY FOLLOWING HIM.

>... they practiced three or four religions at the time.

1. BEING RELIGIOUS IS NOT INDICATIVE OF ETHICOMORAL JUDGMENT, NOR OF ETHICOMORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS; MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, RELIGIOUSNESS, IS INDICATIVE OF ETHICOMORAL CORRUPTNESS, SINCE RELIGION IS SYMPTOMATIC OF SPIRITUAL DEFICIENCY.

2. THE FACT SOMEONE PRACTICES MORE THAN ONE RELIGION IS INDICATIVE OF COMPLETE LACK OF ETHICOMORAL INTEGRITY.

i dont think you understand morals

ADDENDUM: RELIGION FOR THE MONGOL HORDES WAS MERELY A MEANS FOR POPULATION MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL.

>Because that was the standard of the times?
yeah i get this im just spicing up your thread by 'making you think' because you made a boring generic topic

>Genghis Khan was quite liberal/modernist/universal
lol

>tripfagging
>mongol apologism
>capslock
Fuck off.

>tripfagging
>capslock

AND?

>mongol apologism

?

LEARN TO READ.

Kill yourself.

>Can't refute argument so resorts to personal insults.

>I'll take my trip off to pretend to be someone else.
Kill yourself.

>replying to tripfags
you are part of the problem

Nah telling them to fuck off is part of our Veeky Forumstory.

>a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do
Did you confuse it for another word?

Don't even try to give me that shit. If you think doing anything other than ignoring them and encouraging others to do the same will make them piss off, then you are a fucking moron.

You are so new its cute.

It was a special case as I had to make a point that applies to the Genghis moral relativism topic and isn't stated enough.

Except I'm not and you're retarded.

Except you are, kiddo.

>the fact that people in his time were a way means he was not
Bitch what? Does it make any sense to say "George Washington wasn't white, that's just the way British colonists were at the time"?

> Blood thirsty warmonger
> Misunderstood
Nigga, it doesn't matter if these guys were common, he was still a sack of shit

Great men are almost always bad men. It's inevitable they'll be hated by lesser individuals.

He was a blood thirsty war monger. He was just better at it than most. Also, being nomadic he saw little use in preserving cities as anything other than tributaries.

Lel he thought they were beneath him because he beat all those people and their god(s) didn't help him

kill yourself tripfag, You know she'd want you to

>good and evil aren't relative
>therefore they can't be circumstantial

Never steal, not even from your rich oppressive overlord, even if your children are starving.
Never kill, even if a marauder killed your children, and is planning to kill you after raping your wife.
Never lie, even when a lie can save millions of lives.

The faulty logic of moral absolutism leads to autistic scenarios which is why no sane person would dedicate his life to preaching and following such laws. The sane person adapts to his circumstances in order to survive, and the wisest person will figure out how to thrive in his circumstances.

Timujin spent his childhood as a piss poor hunter taking care of his family, he was faced with death, hunger, disease and managed to survive them all. Instead of preaching moral absolutism, living a shit life and dying of starvation, he realized that this world is merciless and the only way to conquer it is to be even more merciless. He managed to unite warring clans, conquer nations stronger than his and forge the(2nd you tea drinking fag) largest empire the world has ever seen within his lifetime. Gamble as you wish on your afterlife but you might loose all your chips while men like Genghis use their money to do great things instead of spending them haphazardly.

Lol, go back to arguing on facebook

>has no profound ideas so just says a bunch of 14 year-old tier bullshit

>come on guys listen to me im telling the truth

>I can't refute any of his points, better resort to petty insults

>i cant refute any of his entirely subjective assertions

Got me there, kid.

I linked to the wrong post, i meant the one where you wrote in all caps that morality is absolute.

Even still, just about everything you say is dumb nonsense in all caps.

>Genghis Khan was quite liberal/modernist/universal in how he treated religion
Religious universalism is not liberal or modernist by it's nature.

Shut up retard and put your tripcode back on.

No. He was a spiritual man who had legitimate interests in the faiths he came across and attempted to understand them. user is right about that at least.

He subjugated their cultures and understood the pragmatic uses of religion as well, absolutely using them to make his rule better. But that's not the same as not being spiritual in any way.

Even if he wasn't really spiritual, which would be a ridiculous claim seeing as how he devoted large amounts of time to prayer and discourse with religious leaders. He would HAVE to understand the religions of people he conquered to better shape those religions and the populations who followed him to fit into his vision.

He was spiritual but he admitted in his autobiography the "secret history" that he never considered converting to those religions because he beat them in battle