Genghis Khan sculpture unveiled at Marble Arch in London

[Alexandru H.]

Exaggerations. When people talk about Genghis Khan, they refer to the whole period of Mongolian rule in Asia, even though most of the deaths in China, for example, were inflicted by his descendants. Baghdad was destroyed by Hulagu, the Golden Horde invaded Europe after his death etc... Marco Polo clearly states that the horrific memories people have of the Middle East massacres are related to the Ilkhans and not to Genghis Khan, who at that moment had become quite a legendary figure...

[Malthus]

There were certainly plently of deaths attributed directly to Genghis, but actual figures are impossible to state. For example, Genghis ordered the terror-destruction of Khwarazmian cities as a preventative measure, but we have no idea what the pre-destruction population of the area was.

Suffice it to say that the Mongols had no qualms whatsoever at ordering the total destruction of the whole populations of cities over a large area, to spread terror and to prevent uprisings, for no better reason than conquest as human predation. Genghis certainly had no objection to this, which makes it sorta difficult to see him as a "good guy". 

Mind you, the whole "making towers of skulls" thing sometimes attributed to Genghis was a later development - by Tamerlane.

[Tonitrus]

ITT, I learned that Hitler has the world record for accumulated carbon credits.

[garbon]

This is very odd.

[grumbler]

Seems like he's in the middle of them
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html#ixzz1sFBDyIW3

  You seriously expect me to believe you when you don't even read your own source?

But the bloody Mongol invasion, which lasted a century and a half and led to an empire that spanned 22 per cent of the Earth's surface, immediately stood out for its longevity.

You don't seriously expect me to believe that Genghis Khan led for a century and a half, do you?

He was almost certainly as bloody-minded a leader as the world has known on that kind of scale, but 40 million dead is at the top limit for the deaths in all of the Mongol conquests (and most of them are attributed to things other than direct Mongol actions, and most of them were in China).  If someone wants to ague that GK was responsible for 6 to 10 million deaths, I won't argue.

[grumbler]

Suffice it to say that the Mongols had no qualms whatsoever at ordering the total destruction of the whole populations of cities over a large area, to spread terror and to prevent uprisings, for no better reason than conquest as human predation. Genghis certainly had no objection to this, which makes it sorta difficult to see him as a "good guy". 

Have you actually read or listened to someone who was trying to argue that he was a "good guy?"  Man, that musta been hilarious. 

[Malthus]

Suffice it to say that the Mongols had no qualms whatsoever at ordering the total destruction of the whole populations of cities over a large area, to spread terror and to prevent uprisings, for no better reason than conquest as human predation. Genghis certainly had no objection to this, which makes it sorta difficult to see him as a "good guy". 

Have you actually read or listened to someone who was trying to argue that he was a "good guy?"  Man, that musta been hilarious. 

Read the article in the OP. To some he's more than a good guy - he's a "divine figure". 

[Valmy]

Have you actually read or listened to someone who was trying to argue that he was a "good guy?"  Man, that musta been hilarious. 

That book 'Ghenghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" seemed to come pretty close to claiming that.  One would think the Turkic peoples of central Asia were best people evah.

[Sheilbh]

I've a couple of friends who've been to Mongolia.  They fucking love Genghis Khan over there.

[garbon]

I've a couple of friends who've been to Mongolia.  They fucking love Genghis Khan over there.

Makes sense as one of their few renowned figures.

[jimmy olsen]

But the bloody Mongol invasion, which lasted a century and a half and led to an empire that spanned 22 per cent of the Earth's surface, immediately stood out for its longevity.

You don't seriously expect me to believe that Genghis Khan led for a century and a half, do you?

He was the Grumbler of his time. 

[grumbler]

Read the article in the OP. To some he's more than a good guy - he's a "divine figure". 

Well, Satan is a "divine figure" to many Christians, as well, and he isn't "more than a good guy" to them! 

[grumbler]

I've a couple of friends who've been to Mongolia.  They fucking love Genghis Khan over there.

I am sure.  But I don't think Malthus was responding to them when he argues that GK's actions "makes it sorta difficult to see him as a "good guy". 

Maybe he just wants to be prepared in case someone does try to argue that GK was "a good guy."

[Malthus]

Read the article in the OP. To some he's more than a good guy - he's a "divine figure". 

Well, Satan is a "divine figure" to many Christians, as well, and he isn't "more than a good guy" to them! 

Your argument is that the guy quoted in the OP thinks Genghis is "satanic", and that's why he's putting up a statue of him?

Interesting. 

[Malthus]

I've a couple of friends who've been to Mongolia.  They fucking love Genghis Khan over there.

I am sure.  But I don't think Malthus was responding to them when he argues that GK's actions "makes it sorta difficult to see him as a "good guy". 

Maybe he just wants to be prepared in case someone does try to argue that GK was "a good guy."

Since my comment was aimed at the OP, you think wrong.