Reminder that Mongol supporters are better than Dixiecucks/Axisfags/Whatever

>whitewash he's atrocities.
Ainglish nukka, do you spoke the wheel?

john green pls go

Phoneposting is the the future you shut-in. This is a normie board now virgin.

Nukka I work in a tech company, fucking randos and shitposting on 4chinz

>they definitely whitewash he's atrocities.

How?

No fucking shit. If you deny them you're a cuck.

>Also you ignore the fact that most mongolboos are in Mongolia
Not anymore. There's been enormous amount of Mongolbooism in the English-speaking world in 20th century historiography that is only recently starting to be challenged. A good example is the popular understanding of the Mongol-Khwarazmian war, which largely comes from books composed in the 50s or earlier:

-The Khwarazmians didn't have 400,000 soldiers, no medieval ruler did (except for the Song emperor). They had 40,000 horsemen and maybe about as many (high end) poorly trained urban militia to defend large cities.

-Khwarazmia wasn't a powerful centralized empire as the Mongols portrayed it, it was essentially a semi-unified series of city-states that would often surrender without a fight to the invaders.

-There is no evidence, other than the word of the Mongols and those writing under their auspices, that Temujin ever planned an equal alliance with Khwarazm, and ample evidence that he was going to invade anyway or at least ask for submission.

-The Mongols did not treat cities that surrendered well at all and constantly reneged on surrender terms (this, by the way,

-The Mongols destroying the Khwarazmian dynasty is less of an omg wtfawesome military achievement, and more the logical result of 100,000 well-armed and well-trained cavalrymen from all across north Asia being unleashed against a series of city-states with nowhere near their number, and without the unity to muster an army to match their's even if they did have equal numbers. Though it was of course an impressive achievement to gather an army of 100,000 in the first place from the tribes of the steppe.

>-The Mongols did not treat cities that surrendered well at all and constantly reneged on surrender terms

Can you expand on this/ give examples?

It is only a crime if you lose senpai

I’m not that guy but Mongols were known to be crafty opportunists. They allied themselves with the Song Chinese to defeat the Jurchen Jin Dynasty. After the fight was over, the Mongols reinstated the Jurchen Realm and issued terribly unfavourable terms to the Chinese Emperor.

>Is denying the Holocaust worse than saying the Holocaust was a good thing and it doesn't matter anyway because muh autobahn?
100% yes
At least you can confront an honest person and have some degree of predictability in your discourse.

Of course.

Samarkand sustained a four-day siege before it surrendered. The Turkic troops defending it (the Kwharezmian army was entirely horsemen, mostly of Turkic origin; city foot militias existed in the largest urban centers but must have been small and played little role since they're seldom mentioned) had turned it over because Temujin assured them at they could join the Mongol army, like the other steppe peoples. According to Ibn al-Athir, the soldiers said of the Mongols: "We are their race. They will not kill us." When they opened the gates, the Mongols marched them and a considerable number of civilians into a field and had them all executed, then burned the city.

Merv surrendered after a seven-day siege and a few feeble sorties when Temujin met with the city's governor and promised that his citizens wouldn't be harmed. As soon as the city surrendered and had its defenders disarmed, he got to slaughtering the population and sacking it.

When Gurjang surrendered after being promised safe conduct, apparently with little resistance, the Mongols broke the dams and flooded the city, then proceeded to execute the survivors.

Kwharezm was part of a pretty consistent pattern of behavior. See: Hulagu taking down the Assassin State in western Persia. It was well known that Mongols hated sieges and so he instead tried to get as many forts as possible to surrender without a fight. In 1256, Mongol forces approached Maimun-Diz, the residence of the ruling imam, Rukn al-Din. They bombarded the fortress but apparently made no breech. A few days of siege later, the young and scared imam came to negotiate terms of surrender. Hülegü, with assurances of forgiveness and safe conduct, insisted that the ruler come to him in person. He then used Rukn to obtain the surrenders of dozens of other fortresses. After the campaign was done, most garrisons were executed and Rukn was “kicked to a pulp and then put to the sword" in the court of Mongke Khan.

Yes. It's honest.

Joke: denying your country has Mongol rape ancestry
Woke: we wuzzing as Mongols

thanks for that expansion, I do feel very suspicious of the Ghengis Khan and the making of the modern world types who paint them as this benevolant and progressive force.

How well did they treat the cities and places which did not resist them at all?

Not sure. But even that book contains excerpts of Mongol soldiers riding into towns and villages under their rule that had voluntary submitted and butchering a bunch of people at random for the hell of it, and bringing down a whole army to kill them if they tried to defend themselves. Partly as a test of loyalty.

I'm convinced all Mongolboos are underage redditors who only know of them from Carlin's meme podcast.

>dude Mongols are so epic and badass xD they killed entire cities! Just like a video game villain XD

The savagery of the mongols is now largely academic. The other two are more recent and less easy to support. In time they will be like Genghis

Also Green.
>they're the exception lel

Is he a SJW.

The only claim to fame for the mongmeme empire was "muh large swathes of nothing muh yoog empire" and killing civilian peasants when they weren't busy fucking horses/each other

They're the one group that sociopathic edgelords can like without getting called nazis, since they're not white.

this. to deny how savage they were would just shit on their only legacy

I think they get a bad rep in history but being under the khan was not so bad , highly egalitarian for the time even allowing freedom of religion and woman rights in an empire at that time was virtually unheard of.ghengis Khan himself is probably one of the greatest generals of all time yet most wont study him because they figure they were all just a giant marauding hord. Way more influential to history then alexander the great and a bigger empire then rome.

See

The most annoying part about Mongolboos is:

>Look at this fuckhuge map of the empire in 1293, the Mongols were so awesome and unbeatable

*point out one of their dozens of defeats, for instance 1281 in Japan, 1281 in Syria, 1285-1286 in Hungary, 1286 in Vietnam, 1287-1288 in Poland, and 1293 in Java*

>That doesn't count, the Mongol Empire didn't exist anymore after 1241/1262!

To be perfectly honest they were not more ruthless than other famed conquerors, like the Romans, but they never had that Roman grit that meant that if some fag beats you you just keep going back time and time again until he collapses. The fact that they did what they did when in 1200 they were a speck on the steppes is amazing.