If violence makes you squeamish, this video might be hard to watch. For this list, we’ll be looking at the wickedest men throughout recorded history. Our cou...
Ok, on the Mongolian thing, specifically Genghis Khan, you are correct... to a point. In comparison to other pre-gunpowder armies (probably an arbitrary point, but you gotta have some line when bullshitting about history) the Mongolians were absolutely more "tolerant" in many ways. There's the famous "bring me a Muslim and a Christian so I can hear them debate to me" moment. He was pretty open to all religions as long as people bent the knee basically, which, all things considered, is very progressive. Especially compared to many European societies and rulers that demanded absolute adherence to a specific sect of Christianity. Just being Christian alone wasn't even enough. So that's all well and good.
There was, however, the whole "what if they don't bend the knee?" question lol. And the answer to that is pretty much "nice city you have here. Be a shame if it didn't exist." Which, again, isn't especially uniquely evil for the time. It was kinda routine for Romans at least 1000 years before the Mongols (obviously mostly different parts of the world before someone assumes shit off comparisons) to do the whole "surrender and we'll work something out or resist and we'll level your city." A pretty effective tactic.
The Mongolians get a shitty historical framing because mostly Europeans have written the history that we read (and Chinese who had their reasons to not be kind in the history books). So of course they frame brutal warlords like Caesar (which is what he was to anyone who was not a Roman citizen) as great statesmen, adept at war and diplomacy, etc. And it's hard to deny he wasn't a great statesman, clearly he was since he elevated himself to something beyond what others had done and successfully held onto it (until he didn't). But they leave out the exact details of his conquests around Europe and even in Northern Africa/Western Asian area. We hear about piles of heads and the nickname "the scourge of god" for the Khans. But Caesar's name is associated with emperor, wealth, eventually it's associated with god himself with Constantine and onward with the Eastern Orthodox Christians. Pretty telling setup when one side becomes "godly" and the other "the scourge of god." Pretty early version of "the hordes of Asia" used many times later on by Europeans.
Kind of all over the place, but my only point is it's ok to admit that Genghis Khan was a pretty not good guy. He directly led to the deaths of who knows how many people and it wasn't for any sort of high minded liberatory goal. Just conquest. He and his people just happened to be especially good at it and he wasn't white, so, he gets too much negative coverage compared to others.
If we were making a real evil people list I'm fairly certain at least half to 2/3 would be US presidents and statesmen cough Kissinger
Ok, on the Mongolian thing, specifically Genghis Khan, you are correct... to a point. In comparison to other pre-gunpowder armies (probably an arbitrary point, but you gotta have some line when bullshitting about history) the Mongolians were absolutely more "tolerant" in many ways. There's the famous "bring me a Muslim and a Christian so I can hear them debate to me" moment. He was pretty open to all religions as long as people bent the knee basically, which, all things considered, is very progressive. Especially compared to many European societies and rulers that demanded absolute adherence to a specific sect of Christianity. Just being Christian alone wasn't even enough. So that's all well and good.
There was, however, the whole "what if they don't bend the knee?" question lol. And the answer to that is pretty much "nice city you have here. Be a shame if it didn't exist." Which, again, isn't especially uniquely evil for the time. It was kinda routine for Romans at least 1000 years before the Mongols (obviously mostly different parts of the world before someone assumes shit off comparisons) to do the whole "surrender and we'll work something out or resist and we'll level your city." A pretty effective tactic.
The Mongolians get a shitty historical framing because mostly Europeans have written the history that we read (and Chinese who had their reasons to not be kind in the history books). So of course they frame brutal warlords like Caesar (which is what he was to anyone who was not a Roman citizen) as great statesmen, adept at war and diplomacy, etc. And it's hard to deny he wasn't a great statesman, clearly he was since he elevated himself to something beyond what others had done and successfully held onto it (until he didn't). But they leave out the exact details of his conquests around Europe and even in Northern Africa/Western Asian area. We hear about piles of heads and the nickname "the scourge of god" for the Khans. But Caesar's name is associated with emperor, wealth, eventually it's associated with god himself with Constantine and onward with the Eastern Orthodox Christians. Pretty telling setup when one side becomes "godly" and the other "the scourge of god." Pretty early version of "the hordes of Asia" used many times later on by Europeans.
Kind of all over the place, but my only point is it's ok to admit that Genghis Khan was a pretty not good guy. He directly led to the deaths of who knows how many people and it wasn't for any sort of high minded liberatory goal. Just conquest. He and his people just happened to be especially good at it and he wasn't white, so, he gets too much negative coverage compared to others.
If we were making a real evil people list I'm fairly certain at least half to 2/3 would be US presidents and statesmen cough Kissinger
This is a good point thank you.