Yes it’s true. Ghengis first, and then all later Khans surrounded their court with scholars from other cultures they had conquered and even gave them important positions and had them educate the royalty.
1 Like
To portray them as an uneducated barbarian, which is what he is portraying Rogan as.
Example. Ghengis generals etc wanted him to completely wipe out one of the Chinese states and turn it into pasture lands for their horses. His Chinese scholars talked him out of it and convinced him it would be better to keep the state and people alive to farm for him and pay taxes long term.
Not to say they still didn’t murder millions to take revenge for them not backing them when he called, he was an evil mother fucker, but he definitely surrounded himself and listened to scholars from area’s he conquered.
In the post before this you argue they prized scholars and made a special role for them in their society. Then minutes later it makes sense to portray them as “uneducated barbarians” cause it’s funny.
That is the entire point. That is why it’s racist!
I don’t doubt Ghengis was smart. Of course he was a blood thirsty psycho. “Go kill every man, woman, child and even the dogs in that city aside from a few people who might be of use.” - blood thirsty psycho
They killed like 40 million people. Reduced the human population of Earth by like 10%.
1 Like
They were uneducated barbarians who tried to learn from educated scholars but didn’t always listen. That’s the whole fucking point of the joke dude JFC. Just because they valued them doesn’t mean they always listened to them.
Hence the Khans still being evil fucking barbarians doing barbaric shit. Just like Joe doing being a dumb fucking barbarian saying dumb fucking shit.
2 Likes
Yeah Ghengis was obviously a legit genius but there were lots of Khans so maybe its one of the dumb ones.
Ok I’m done with this. Your understanding of the history here is just bad.
They didn’t “keep doing barbarian shit” because they didn’t listen to the scholars for Christ sake. There is zero evidence for this.
They “did Barbadian shit” cause it was the 13th century.
Your interpretation is brushing up against racist itself.
You should have been done long ago because you’re wrong.
lol at brushing of the mongols barbarianism to 13th century dating. As micro said they would send people back to murder your fucking dogs and children and wipe out entire populations. Regular civil societies did not do that even when they sacked your city.
Too many people like to spin bloodthirsty conquerors as people who did good things as though that was their intent. Dan Carlin covers this in his Wrath of the Khans series on Hardcore History
Not very controversial take I hope: George W. Bush is a bloodthirsty psycho.
Let’s see what happened in Greece…
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5cqh74/what_actually_happens_when_a_city_is_sacked/
Carthage would like a word with you.
As would many many other examples. His history is not well argued.
On the plus side people almost always get better looking when you mix races, and I’m convinced Romanian and Ukrainian women are so hot because of Genghis Khan.
I’ll show myself out.
2 Likes
Oh shit throughout the entire history of written language there are a handful of examples in extreme situations like after three massive wars they decide to wipe out a city?
The mongols did this as a matter of course. It was their standard to wipe out fucking everything unless you immediately bent the knee, and sometimes even if you did.
99% of the time a civilized society sacked a city they killed lots of people and took the loot.
Trying to compare what civilized societies did to what the mongols did is lol.
The mongols would fucking wipe out everyone, and send people back to murder any survivors.
1 Like
Like lets draw up statistics of what a Roman sacking of a city looked like vs a Mongol sacking and see how they stack up. It won’t be comparable.
We are really using “civilized” in a debate where you are arguing against racism?
Your history, and now your anthropology, are not on solid ground here stim.
Roman = civilized Ancient Gual = uncivilized/barbarian.
Has nothing to do with race, it is based on how your society was structured. AFAIK These are terms and how historians separate the two.
Romans didn’t usually kill everyone because they wanted slaves.
1 Like