First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Should Genghis Khan be considered evil ?
152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/22/16
You can be a 'great' person without being a 'good' person. Genghis Khan made a great empire that unfortunately required the killing of pretty much a fourth of the population. Gaius Julius Caesar's reign is seen as the start of the great Roman Empire, but he slaughtered the gauls and various other indigenous tribes. They both did great things, but were certainly not good people, they may even have been sociopaths.
1491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Canada, Toronto
Offline
Posted 12/22/16 , edited 12/22/16
The problem in classifying someone as good or bad is that the 'good-bad' distinction is highly subjective; traditional anime with simplistic plot will establish a clear boundary between good and bad characters but such distinction can barely be applied in real life. There is few moral values that is universal across cultures and those moral values that are universal are weakly enforced cross-culturally.
It is interesting to note that such advanced societies like states and empires do not actually improve the average lives of their inhabitants; many people in the pre-modern period prefer to live in more simpler societies without states nor empires. Many nomadic people today are still resisting assimilation to advanced societies and their resistance are successful in some cases. In fact, the increasing preference for advanced societies in the present is not due to the better quality of live by technology but due to the need to defend their land and resource from foreign interests.
2028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/22/16 , edited 12/22/16
after reading most of what you all have said, i wanted to point out that if you are applying morality to previous conquerors, then ALL of them are "evil". Alexander the great, every khan, Romans, all of imperialism, all of it. subjugating nations is not a nice business.

also, remember that the side benefits of those conquests are accidental in nature. saying that Alexander the great spread Hellenism to the middle east thereby enriching a stagnant culture is shooting an arrow and painting a bulls-eye around it. he didnt give two shits about spreading his culture, it was about gaining power and honor and legacy and riches.

also, when it really comes down to it, the great khan was simply one of the most successful conquerors. he was by no means the most evil because of it. he was just the most able. if Alexander or Napoleon or any other conqueror could have kept going, they would have. they just fucked up or lost their momentum or died.

The great men of history are almost always BAD men. (i dont remember who quoted this, but damn if it isnt cool)

that being said, the mongols did some terrible shit. and their military tactics were very cruel to their opponents, and in many unusual and imaginative ways. for example, when invading the middle east, he would offer to accept the surrender of whole cities, promising to spare their lives only to then force them to attack a neighboring city on the front lines or be killed (UNARMED AND UNARMORED). and there are contemporary sources that cite instances where people on the walls of the defensive city recognizing family or friends as they repelled the half mad, fear crazed "spared" citizens of a nearby town or city, and having to kill them no less. (and this is just one of many examples of the twisted things the mongols did, and a somewhat less terrible example as well)
qwueri 
22852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 12/22/16
When applying 'good' and 'bad' labels, keep in mind whom he was good for. Genghis Khan may have been good for his people, but pretty bad for everywhere else, including China and Europe.
Posted 12/22/16


Yesssssssssssssssssss
One Punch Mod
117897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 12/23/17
Year-end cleanup. Closing threads with no new posts since 12/31/2016.
Banned
371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/22/16 , edited 12/25/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

No, I am stating the labels of good and evil may appear slightly arbitrary, hence subjective with some reasoning tying into survival aspects. In any case, I was agreeing with you.


I'm sorry. I misinterpreted you. I'm used to people on the net communicating with each other in a snarky way, like on the youtube comments section lol. Sorry sorry sorry! My bad!
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.