Well, Genghis did spread Chinese culture and create a Pax Mongolica, and in general the mongol states were civilization spreading and not the anti-civilization of the Nazis.

I personally admire Genghis, hence my username.

he was no worse than any other steppe or even settled comunity conqueror in how he behaved, he was only more sucessfull.  LAso remember most of Mongol history is written by the unhappy losers, The great Khan also advanced government and trade in ways ahead of his time which Hitler did not.  Also the people the Khan killed was either through the haphazard of war or through strategic example, very different than the targeted execution of people based on ethnicity.

Originally posted by Paul I don't think Genghis is as bad as Hitler. I'll admit sometimes he does have some strange views and he is this forum's resident right wing nutter. But he does know a lot about invading Russia, he's not Welsh and I'm sure he's nice to his mother. Now if it's was Genghis and Pol Pot... hmmm

Thank you, when I am world overlord, you shall be justly rewarded.

If that's true then maybe you're not cut out for world rule.

If by "many people" you mean people outside this forum I am not the above statement is correct.

Regardless, if Hilter was concerned about public relation he sure picked on the wrong group of people

Perhaps it simply has something to do with different eras in which the two men lived.

Genghis was around in an age when a "proper" ruler was expected, or at least not condemned, for invading expansive territories and killing a few innocents in the process. He is not vilified, perhaps, because he was simply doing the "norm" of his epoch.

Hitler, on the other hand, inhabited a world where first-world states were expected to be at least bearable, if sometimes oppressive, places to live. His imperial aims, or raher the fact that he acted upon them, were quite unique. And, moreover, his killing was so sytematic and predetermined that many just find it chilling.

The Matter, that one lived in the middle ages and the other in the modern era, makes the unarguable difference. In the middle ages, killing was a part of life and it was also in honor. People were in a way used to the annual raids and massacres commited by their opponents. It was a natural loss, that a certain percentage of your people were lost due to war. There was also no nationalism and blind hate towards the attacker so people did not feel the same feelings as they do today against strangers, those being the invaders.

Killing was a normal sight for the midlleages. Without it, life couldn't be imagined. A war was one of the few easy ways to keep your people alive.

These days, wars have turned into atrocities for the people and therefore, Hitler is worse, because to enter a war in this era, it takes a more disturbed person.

During the times of ancient Greece the same 'ideas' of human rights existed as today. So perhaps westerners at least have no excuse. Similarly Confusionism and Budhism was well eastblished in the far east so they can't be let off the hook either.

And I think the 20th century has proven worse than any prior century for inhumanity. So I think Hitler & Stalin are on a level playing field with medieval kings, Roman & Chinese emperors when it comes to us judging them.

that may be true, but is not every common soldier innocent in a certain way?

sure, but my argument was not justification btut eh only thign you can ever do about this is trying to cotnain this as mcuh as possible...but keep in mind that wars and killign people is not bad in every case.

war is a natural part of humanity, targeted genocide agaisnt specific people for no reason is not....

Chinggis made war like any leader does, for land, power, and wealth, Hitler did even when not at war killed people because of who they where, thats a big difference.

Regarding the oppening post, I'd say that Ghenghis Khan has to be in a league of his own, when it comes to massacre, loot, pillage and rape. Nobody, and I mean this: nobody, considered the extensive depopulation of half Asia by the Mongols "normal" and their grand conquest of murdering and butchering was not considered to be on par even with the wildest medieval practices.

Conquest, in general, generates brutality. And the conquered are the victims. I've seen in another forum a comparison about Muslim and Mongolian conquest and even some comparisons with Alexander's and Roman conquest. All (but one - extremely pro-Mongol that one, and a Ghenghis-admirer) thought that in general the Mongolian conquest was so uber-horrendous that it not only was noticed as such by all contemporary historians (and they, as all here point out, were used in random acts of cruelty) but also left Asia lagging behind Europe ever since. The Mongols have carved an empire with blood, as all conquerors do. But they didn't just that. They exhausted the demographic reserves of Asia, have thrown whole cultures down the drain (was there any empire wealthier or more sophisticated than Khwarazm in the 13th century?) and have caused massive destruction whenever they felt like it. For the Mongols, the life of one Mongol was valued more than a 1.000 non-Mongols, and that's how they operated.

Hitler wasn't much better. He too valued his people way and above the others and he subscribed to the "our people have the right to live, the other are subhumans" club. His actions caused more deaths than those of Ghenghis, but that's only due to the fact that in mid 20th century the population of the earth was about 8-9 times larger than the one in the middle ages. Allegedly, the Mongol expansion has costed directly the lives of more than 15 million people (some say even as more as 25) while WW2 costed about 65 million lives. In Hitler's numbers, his own countrymates are included, while in the Mongols the victims were non-Mongols, and most of the times non-combatants.

Both of them are monsters words are too poor to describe. Some people seem to adore Ghenghis, but that's rather due to distance in time. In 500 years several (thousands? million?) people shall look back to Hitler and call him "great" and "awesome" and "cool"... that's what time does to dubious figures with great impact on history, you know.

...there are after all people now adoring Hitler...

1. Mongol Conquests (13th Century)
   • Colin McEvedy, Atlas of World Population History (1978):
     • China Proper: In the text, he states that the population declined by 35 million as the Mongols reduced the country to subjugation during the 13th Century. In the Chart, the population drops from 115M to 85M between 1200 and 1300 CE.
     • Iran: Charted population declined from 5.0M to 3.5M
     • Afghanistan: from 2.50M to 1.75M
     • Russia-in-Europe: 7.5M to 7M
   • Alan McFarlane, The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap (2003): Chinese population reduced to half in 50 years -- over 60 million people dying or failing to be replaced.
   • Washington Post, 4/4/4 review of Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World: "It's estimated that 15 million died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia."
   • The (London) Independent (18 Aug. 2001): >3M died during the creation of Genghis's empire.
   • PGtH:
     • 1.6M killed in Herat
     • 160,000 of the Shah's troops killed at Bokhara
   • Gibbon D&F3,6
     • Zingis [Genghis]: conquest of Central Asia: 4,347,000 in 3 cities
       • Maru: 1,300,000
       • Herat: 1,600,000
       • Neisabour [Nishapur]: 1,747,000
     • Zingis: 160,000 Carizmians [Khwarizmi]
     • Baghdad: pyramid of 90,000 skulls
     • Cublai
       • 100,000 Chinese commit mass suicide to escape
       • 100,000 lost in expedition v. Japan
   • R.J. Rummel accuses the Mongols of 29,927,000 democides in the 13th through 15th Centuries.
   • Britannica 11th ed. (1911)
     • Jenghiz Khan
       • Herat: 1.6M
       • Battle against Khwarizm: 160,000 Khw. k.

ah, forget this site, it's completely worthless when it comes to numbers before the 20th century, in fact I even believe they purposely rise numbers...

and regarding Chingiz, modern reasearch has shown that no major genozides at all took place during his reign. first of all, it hes been foudn out that most triebs and cities he supposedly annihilated were still pretty big 100 years later, second, he could ahve never gotten the numebrs of sodleirs for his conquest fi he would not have included major numbers of subdued (in old history books called exterminated) to execute his conquests at all, at least the children and womenfolk were spared in almost all instances, and alst, most horror-stories about ravaging pludnering etc. actually referred to Timur the lame, not Chengiz, but dumb western historicians don't even realize the difference between the two and attribute massacres carried out by him to Chingiz.

ha, was any war ever necessary?

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1200 - 1200 , Northern China - 30,000,000 killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215 - 1215 , Yanjing China (today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing - Beijing ) - 25,000,000 killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1221 - 1221 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishapur - Nishapur , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia - Persia - ~1.7 million killed in assault

1221, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv - Merv , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia - Persia - ~1.3 million killed in assault

1221, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meru_Chahjan&action=edit - Meru Chahjan , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia - Persia - ~1.3 million killed in assault

1221, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayy - Rayy , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia - Persia - ~1.6 million killed in assault

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1226 - 1226 , Tangut Campaign - Gengis Khan launches war against the northern China people of Tangut.

1236, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bil%E4r - Bilär , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar - Bulgar cities, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria - Volga Bulgaria - 150,000 or more and more (nearly half of population)

1237-1240, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus' - Kievan Rus' - half of population

1241, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahlstatt - Wahlstatt -- defeat of a combined Polish-German force in lower Silesia (Poland); the Mongols turn back to attend to the election of a new Grand Khan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1258 - 1258 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad - Baghdad - ~800,000 people. Results in destruction of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasids - Abbasid dynasty

1226- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1266 - 1266 , ~18 million reported killed in conquest of northern Chinese territory. This number estimated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kublai_Khan - Kublai Khan himself.

About 80 million killed in total over mongol reign.

Not sure how correct these number are but even if a fraction of that is correct that would put Mongols conquerers in a unique group. Hitler, Alexander, or Arabs didn't go this far

On the positive side Mongols pretty much adapted the culture of Persian in the west and Chinese in the east and spread both cultures around the world. Then again they may not have had any alternatives

Hitler is considered evil because of the concentration camps. He killed people because of their ethnic group. Genghis had mass killings only in battle and for strategical reasons (fear and psychological warfare), not because he didnt like the people.

I find it of extremely bad tast, cynical, silly, childish, immature and a host of other similar characterizations (enter whatever you wish, no matter how harsh, I'll subscribe to it) to justify mass genocide and horrendous acts of mass brutality, by simply stating silly things like "yes, but those times were different" or "sure he killed many, but that was normal back then" or other similar bull.

Genghis is considered the greatest mass murderer of all times, he devastated an entire continent and halted the progress for the whole Asia, and you dare to compare him with people like Charlamagne, Alexander, J. Ceasar or any other for that account? All the conquerors of all times haven't done half of what the Mongols did alone.

We've lost any sense of reason here, haven't we?

How would the Ghenghiz admirers (even those named after him - we've got two resident Khan-nettes, huh?) feel if it was their mothers raped and then slaughtered, their fathers butchered, their brothers and sisters massacred? How would they feel if it was their homes torn down, their crops burned, their land ravaged?

Would you still feel that Ghenghiz was nothing more than "a great conqueror" and such similar crap?

and please tell me how this is different from any other steppe or even non steppe conqueror

Lets just say there is no such thing as right or wrong and this all something we just imagine. Many people in prisons grow up in the bad part of town and they should be released because they are not that much worse than other criminals in there neighborhood and they should all be released.

Democratic?! Aw c'mon!

Well buddy, then we have completely different concepts of what "democratic" means...

I can't see anything democratic in the mongol empire. There were no votes, no electorals, no political forum - nothing that has to do with democracy and it's principles

First of all, I should say '' Hello everyone!''. Then I hope you will help me with my improvement of my history knowledge. Ýn addition to this, I wish there was someone who proved that ''Chinggis khaan wasn't Turkish!''. Thank you.

so what? there was the Quriltai and the absolute religious freedom, what more can you expect from a medieval country?  and the fundament fot he coutnry were strict but fair laws.

I think you all neglect one thing: Hitler died almost sixty years ago. The memory is still fresh.

How long ago did the Mongol empire crumble? Several centuries ago.

It's a matter of memory

"Just look at the success of the following Yuan dynasty and such."

LIKE WHAT? WIDESPREAD POVERTY AND DISCRIMINATIVE LAWS? The Yuan is what ended the progress under Song, there is a marked decline in many fields of industry such as the iron and agricultural. Ironically even the horse industry suffered even though they are nomads.

Comparing Genghis to Hitler is actually not as well as comparing him to Hideki Tojo, the Mongols and the imperial Japanese were more similar to each other than to Hitler, they raped, pillaged and slaughtered cities for pleasure. Zhong Du was utterly destroyed. And Kublai had to built it from scratch, you can find that in Yuan Shi as well as archeological evidence. Similarily the Tangut population in Nin Xia was exterminated. The reason Genghis defenders gave was that the people resisted. Hilarious, thats what the Japanese did in world war two as well. And even they did not kill as much which was ironic considering the world population is not as large back then yet the numbers slaughtered was still higher.

People say time factor, thats dull. Time isn't the only factor, so are culture and space. Germany and Japan didn't think these are unacceptable, only the west did!

As for no one think killing is wrong back then, thats incorrect as well. Mass slaughter has always been dreaded by the ideal of East Asia and even though there isn't a law against it, the historical texts always critisize them severely. So you argue that the mongols are a different culture so they are "more acceptable". Then neitehr does Hitler and Tojo's generals consider the West European moraily as logical either. Then again what international law are there in world war 2 that saids slaugher are illegal?

As for Chenjis having a great personality, have you all forgot this quote

"Its pleasurable to see the tears of the people" doesn't sound too much better than Hitler, if not worse considering he don't view any people as humans and disposed of when necessary. As for not killing people he doesn't like, please where did that BS came from, all rulers of the past and Genghis isn't an acception would kill people they don't like.

Its not Genghis thats overrated as a killer, but that Hitler is overrated, he isn't any different from many rulers of the past and the only difference is that he lived in this century.

Yes, but still it's not even close to democratic. The qurultai was not for the people - it was for the mongol aristocracy. Chinggis didn't act as a tyrant, nor a popular, democratic leader. He acted more like an "enlighted despot"

it's not from the secret history, but from a non-contemporary persian historian

Hitler is considdered evil in his own league because he just picked a random people and said they're inferior to us an thus have to die, and to achieve this he even attacked other countires.

Chingiz just killed a lot of people because he was mighty enough to expand really far. if you judge people by the amount of killed you an call every single ruler that went to war a mass murder, and by that the term get's quite inflationed and if compared to hitler it does make look Hitler a regular guy comparably. Chingiz had a "lucky" shot in beign able to achieve more than others, and naturally in his course he stepped over dead bodies wherever he went. want i want to say absically, Chingiz is just considdered a mass murder because otehr rulers like never gotten to the point conquering half eurasia, the more conquest, the more dead. Chingiz never wanted groups to be punished unless unavoidable.

"Also, if the people you conquered continue to resist despite your strict administration, which method are going to use if you were an ancient nomad leader?  Acknowledge those people's rights and withdraw or just kill them and educate their offsprings with your ideal?"

The flaw with this argument is that he killed people even before they revolted, for simply resisting from been conquered.

"Hitler is considdered evil in his own league because he just picked a random people and said they're inferior to us an thus have to die, and to achieve this he even attacked other countires."

I don't see how thats better than simply exterminating people who resist.

"Chingiz just killed a lot of people because he was mighty enough to expand really far."

So was Hitler.

 "if you judge people by the amount of killed you an call every single ruler that went to war a mass murder, and by that the term get's quite inflationed and if compared to hitler it does make look Hitler a regular guy comparably." Chingiz had a "lucky" shot in beign able to achieve more than others, and naturally in his course he stepped over dead bodies wherever he went. want i want to say absically, Chingiz is just considdered a mass murder because otehr rulers like never gotten to the point conquering half eurasia, the more conquest, the more dead."

A masterpiece of understatement, in fact There were plenty of ruler that conquered many cities and haven't slaughtered, emperor Tang Tai Zong only slaughtered once in his career against a city in Hobei after coninuous rebellion, he later regretted this his whole life, when he undertook the Koguryo campaign, even after the people of Liao Yang kept on resisting he spared every single one of them. In fact when Li Jing slaughtered the tujue tribes after he overthrew them in 630, Tai Zong reprimanded him and degraded his position. The Tang empire at his death was even larger and more populous than that of Genghis.

In fact he is just one of the many benevelent rulers who haven't slaughtered, even the xiongnu Liu Yuan gave strict order to his "barbarian" army to spare all the people of a city, when his general Shi Le still killed over 1000, Liu Yuan was furious and degraded him.

In fact we don't even need these examples, compare Genghis to his own grandson Kublai and you can see a great deal of difference. Kublai did nothing to the Song capital of Han Zhou or even the Dali capital of Tai He even after they continuously resisted(And they resisted for far longer than the Xia capital of Ning Xia and the Jin capital of Zhong Du, both of which was exterminated)

Third your logic that any ruler can slaughter if they have that power is unacceptable, in that case, Hitler is also far from the worst, there are much mor rasist people than Hitler and they would perhaps exterminate the Jews instantly if they got power. In fact none of the political figure could be the worst since they must have certain intelligence and mercy to get to that possition. A mass murderer would never have became a leader of a country.

 "Chingiz never wanted groups to be punished unless unavoidable."

Tell that to the exterminated Xia. It was far from unavoidable, Genghis wanted to ounish them for resisting, conquering them wasn't enough to him. And neither is many of the cities immedieately after conquered.

Depending on your personal opinon I can see why soeone would think Hitler fought for the wrong reason.  But I don't see Cengiz Han fighting for the wrong reason.  He did what every other leader or general did, spread out an empire, but only he was probably the best at it to date.

Yes, but Hitler mainly did it just because he hated Jews.  Cengiz Han didn't have hatred towards any of the people he conquered.  He did it for the purpose of his empire.

A good personality is hardly a world-domination trait. If it was, I'd be master of the universe

Almost all. At least the same way Ghenghis did. 

Sure he was tolerant towards all religions, he slaughtered everyone irregardles of his/hers religion. I call that tolerant!  

Nobody said he wasn't an effective (in the scope of "greatness") leader. Those tend to listen to good advice and even seek for it.

Both were horrible monsters, two of the worst the human race has ever produced. I can't really make up my mind who was worst, but they both are in a league of their own.

PS:  Don't forget the beautiful ladies Chinggis had.

Yeah, he set world record for raping I've heard... still unbeaten too  

this is ridiculous, this is about two persons and their personalities. udner  Trumans rule US sodleirs ahve killed many thousands of enemies, just like Hitler, so does that make Truman a monster like Hitler?

let's take Arsitoteles, who preached to enslave the Persians becuase they're barbarians. I'd say he was mroe of a monster than Chingiz because Chingiz never said soemthign liek that.

I repeat, what the anti-Chingiz fraction here does is simple ignorance, promoted by years of repetition of biased primary accounts by conquered peoples and nationalist western authors, that's all there is.

well, because due to Mongol belief, the earth was given to Chingiz to rule over by Tengri, so he just claimed what belogned to him already. you could as well ask why the Arabs after Mohammed killed so many people by forcing the right belief upon them. AFAIK every major Steppe ruler beliefed in this world order.

If the Genghis-Lovers, take it easy that hunderts of thousand people were killed, why have you something against Hitler. 

O.K. he killed nearly all jews of Europe but at this time were Jews realy hated, because a lot of them were moneylenders, and like in nowdays  3rd World Countries, are monelyenders not loved people because they took too much interest (%).

I think that he did not wanted to kill all the "Unter-Menschen", then he begun first with mass murder as the war was lost 1941, because he could not let the Enemie of the Mankind free.

 According to "Mein Kampf" (the hitler bible) He wanted to conquer Europe like Napoleon and to produce a generation of pure Aryans, Supermen. 

Hitler hated not the other races, he thought only that they are under-humans (that was common in white countries).

And for this goal was he did not have any limits, for example if one German was killed by the resistance the Germans killed 100 civilians, for nearly all conquerers a legitime way.

The difference between Genghis and Hitler was, that Genghis won because of his Brutality and Hitler last because of his Brutality. Due to the killings of civilians the germans last the Support, which they had for example in the Sovjet Union, because the were terrorised by Stalin, and as the Germans arrived they thought that they were their liberators.

t"he Chingiz lovers don't approve the many killings, it's just that Chingiz killed so many because the other conquerors were less sucessful."  Hitler was also realy succsesfull, at the begining.

Where is the difference, both tried to rule the world, and humans were worthless for both, Chingiz Khan killed also people wich rebelled, hitler the same. And both killed People due to a personal Opinion Chingis killed Tartarians, because he revanged his fathers deth, Hitler isolated people because he considered them as parasites or varmits then 1941 (after the losing of the Battles, Moska, Stalingrad was clear the war ist lost) then he had a choice let them go or kill them.

The same ruthless Bastards.

I wonder what one would say about Hitler if the Third Reich succeeded and won World War II.......................................

Who knows?  The victors are praised, and the losers demonized. 

But yes, I would say that Genghis Khan should not be compared directly to Hitler.  Hitler killed based on ethnicity and race, while Genghis Khan only killed to ensure that his Mongol warriors achieved victory.

Hitler is the hunter who kills indulgently, while Genghis Khan is the hunter who kills only when necessity calls.

No, Komnenos is not kidding.  This is an international forum, and tolerance is one of its fundamental rules. 

I know that you are a good person.  If you can tone down your nationalism and bigoted views toward others, we can all contribute for the good of the forum.

Witzig, ya!

Are there any Hitler lovers and Hitler admirers? who are they?

And reason?

Because i see a lot Chingis-Lovers(as someone described) here! Isn`t it enought to show difference between them?

Thanks...

He has never executed the people who followed him. In war, there was a cause. The rule was if you don't attack first, you'll be attacked. He wanted peace, but his rivals didn't give any chance in his living time. E.g, Chinese (Jin Empire) emperors always pressed Mongol tribes by taxation, and wanted Mongol tribes fight each other. But Chingis khaan united his people in one hand and defeated China. The war wasn't complete, indeed the conquest of China was not complete until 1234. What's more, why did he invade Kwarezm? The mayor of Otrar killed about 100 ambassadors and merchants of Chingis khaan. Is it fair? That's why the war started.

Thanks

  Very few...To Genghis Khan a lot of.

Time frame.

What G did was what everyone expected him to do.

What H did was what some expected him to do.

Between G and H I will go with S, or V, or G, or ....