Military leaders...

[Zypher]

Are you guys having a party without me?

[XemnasXD]

Khan was a great tactician, yeah no one can doubt that

its just that its reaally stupid to create an empire and leave no plans behind his death to safekeep it from dissolving.

and i know most military leaders were brutal in their killings, but Khan was most brutal of them all. Ive never regarded him as a guy with a bit of honor. he was literally a barbarian, bloodthirsty and born smart enough to cruelly maim/kill/rape everything everywhere he went. compare him to someone like Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great...
A guy who leaves the world divided more than ever, a guy who also maimed, killed, and raped everything everywhere he went. The only difference, his empire was smaller, and he was arrogant enough to impose his culture on the world.

Actually Alexander gave as much as he took culture wise. He adopted alot of persian and egyptian traditions and even some from India and brought them back with him to greece....

[rumpleKillskin]

Are you guys having a party without me?

I lol'ed quite a bit after seing that

[dom]

Khan was a great tactician, yeah no one can doubt that

its just that its reaally stupid to create an empire and leave no plans behind his death to safekeep it from dissolving.

and i know most military leaders were brutal in their killings, but Khan was most brutal of them all. Ive never regarded him as a guy with a bit of honor. he was literally a barbarian, bloodthirsty and born smart enough to cruelly maim/kill/rape everything everywhere he went. compare him to someone like Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great...
A guy who leaves the world divided more than ever, a guy who also maimed, killed, and raped everything everywhere he went. The only difference, his empire was smaller, and he was arrogant enough to impose his culture on the world.

Actually Alexander gave as much as he took culture wise. He adopted alot of persian and egyptian traditions and even some from India and brought them back with him to greece....

He died on his way back. And, he imposed hellenism on those cultures, bringing back with him very little. What you're saying is comparable to saying the conquistadors went to South America and brought back the culture. I wouldn't consider Gold, Chocolate, and Tabacco to be culture.

[moloko]

Southkorea, u are talking like someone that views and observes the entire event form outside. To understand why Genghis Khan behaved like that and what his goal was, u have to understand their way of life and their own beliefs (not meaning here religion). It's easy to accuse the Mongols of being nothing but barbarians or Genghis Khan of just conquering meaningless. But the whole point is that it's nothing like that. They were indeed a huge military force, otherwise they wouldn't have conquered more than half of Eurasia. They were cruel or not, that's not something we can judge based upon witnesses that were conquered.

[XemnasXD]

Are you guys having a party without me?

DAM RIGHT WE ARE

GTFO!!!

NOOB!!2211!

[dom]

Southkorea, u are talking like someone that views and observes the entire event form outside. To understand why Genghis Khan behaved like that and what his goal was, u have to understand their way of life and their own beliefs (not meaning here religion). It's easy to accuse the Mongols of being nothing but barbarians or Genghis Khan of just conquering meaningless. But the whole point is that it's nothing like that. They were indeed a huge military force, otherwise they wouldn't have conquered more than half of Eurasia. They were cruel or not, that's not something we can judge based upon witnesses that were conquered.

You're right. Being trampled to death by horses, having them pull you apart, or being burned alive isn't cruel at all.

[rumpleKillskin]

lol xemnas, i wouldnt quote that, the thread would get too long

[XemnasXD]

Khan was a great tactician, yeah no one can doubt that

its just that its reaally stupid to create an empire and leave no plans behind his death to safekeep it from dissolving.

and i know most military leaders were brutal in their killings, but Khan was most brutal of them all. Ive never regarded him as a guy with a bit of honor. he was literally a barbarian, bloodthirsty and born smart enough to cruelly maim/kill/rape everything everywhere he went. compare him to someone like Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great...
A guy who leaves the world divided more than ever, a guy who also maimed, killed, and raped everything everywhere he went. The only difference, his empire was smaller, and he was arrogant enough to impose his culture on the world.

Actually Alexander gave as much as he took culture wise. He adopted alot of persian and egyptian traditions and even some from India and brought them back with him to greece....

He died on his way back. And, he imposed hellenism on those cultures, bringing back with him very little. What you're saying is comparable to saying the conquistadors went to South America and brought back the culture. I wouldn't consider Gold, Chocolate, and Tabacco to be culture.

Just because he didn't make it back doesn't mean everything he picked up along the way didn't make it back. Read up on your Alexander stuff his indulgence in other cultures was so great some considered it disgraceful but still the Greek way of life was changed significantly.....

[TOloseGT]

You're right. Being trampled to death by horses, having them pull you apart, or being burned alive isn't cruel at all.

oh yea, cuz ppl were so civil back then.

the mongol empire didn't expand to western europe cuz genghis died. but, his sons+ still managed to keep the middle east and asia part of the empire alive for 100 + yrs.

[southkorea321]

Khan was a great tactician, yeah no one can doubt that

its just that its reaally stupid to create an empire and leave no plans behind his death to safekeep it from dissolving.

and i know most military leaders were brutal in their killings, but Khan was most brutal of them all. Ive never regarded him as a guy with a bit of honor. he was literally a barbarian, bloodthirsty and born smart enough to cruelly maim/kill/rape everything everywhere he went. compare him to someone like Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great...
A guy who leaves the world divided more than ever, a guy who also maimed, killed, and raped everything everywhere he went. The only difference, his empire was smaller, and he was arrogant enough to impose his culture on the world.

Im talking education wise. Alexander was a noble-educated and better mannered than a savage like Khan. You can compare him to others like Sun Tzu. Theres a big difference in the "depth of character" between two military leaders alike.

Southkorea, u are talking like someone that views and observes the entire event form outside. To understand why Genghis Khan behaved like that and what his goal was, u have to understand their way of life and their own beliefs (not meaning here religion). It's easy to accuse the Mongols of being nothing but barbarians or Genghis Khan of just conquering meaningless. But the whole point is that it's nothing like that. They were indeed a huge military force, otherwise they wouldn't have conquered more than half of Eurasia. They were cruel or not, that's not something we can judge based upon witnesses that were conquered.

Im sorry, didnt completely understand what you were trying to say...

and we all are talking and viewing Khan from the outside. If were not outside, where are we? Its a fact that Khan was only good at killing and taking-he killed noncombatants too-pretty savagely too.

For Rome, its the difference that Rome RULED those who they conquered. Khan didnt. He just killed and killed until he died of natural causes.

[TOloseGT]

wow, "a savage like khan"

u know absolutely shit about genghis khan and the mongol empire. go read up in ur library, "amateur historian"

[Barotix]

Southkorea, u are talking like someone that views and observes the entire event form outside. To understand why Genghis Khan behaved like that and what his goal was, u have to understand their way of life and their own beliefs (not meaning here religion). It's easy to accuse the Mongols of being nothing but barbarians or Genghis Khan of just conquering meaningless. But the whole point is that it's nothing like that. They were indeed a huge military force, otherwise they wouldn't have conquered more than half of Eurasia. They were cruel or not, that's not something we can judge based upon witnesses that were conquered.

You're right. Being trampled to death by horses, having them pull you apart, or being burned alive isn't cruel at all.

fear dom, fear.
best weapon ever.

how about throwing deseased corpses into cities. [ancient bio warfare any1]

fear is what u use 2 pwn.
it got so bad that i had 2 stop playing online Civ [b4 warlords, first few weeks], the only people that wanted 2 go against me were noobs, or tech trading peeps.

so i quit came back for warlords, the gameplay changes stumped me...
and my good old buddy fear is getting overwieght on my sofa

[moloko]

dom, u are judging cruelty upon today ideas, and this is the biggest mistake regarding analyzing and understanding history. You cannot (and I really mean cannot) understand what happened there if you think from the point of view of nowadays ideas and mentalities.
Besides, you don't analyze the sources we have regarding his personalities and achievements: all sources that talk about how cruel he and his people were were written by the conquered, not by the conquerors. And this is the main aspect of what I stated in my last post. Therefore, we don't have an impartially source, therefore the sources we have must be interpreted with very much caution. This is what historians do.

Besides, u can be sure that the peoples conquered by the Romans were not very pleased by their attitude either. It's just a matter of who writes and what.

[dom]

Khan was a great tactician, yeah no one can doubt that

its just that its reaally stupid to create an empire and leave no plans behind his death to safekeep it from dissolving.

and i know most military leaders were brutal in their killings, but Khan was most brutal of them all. Ive never regarded him as a guy with a bit of honor. he was literally a barbarian, bloodthirsty and born smart enough to cruelly maim/kill/rape everything everywhere he went. compare him to someone like Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great...
A guy who leaves the world divided more than ever, a guy who also maimed, killed, and raped everything everywhere he went. The only difference, his empire was smaller, and he was arrogant enough to impose his culture on the world.

Actually Alexander gave as much as he took culture wise. He adopted alot of persian and egyptian traditions and even some from India and brought them back with him to greece....

He died on his way back. And, he imposed hellenism on those cultures, bringing back with him very little. What you're saying is comparable to saying the conquistadors went to South America and brought back the culture. I wouldn't consider Gold, Chocolate, and Tabacco to be culture.

Just because he didn't make it back doesn't mean everything he picked up along the way didn't make it back. Read up on your Alexander stuff his indulgence in other cultures was so great some considered it disgraceful but still the Greek way of life was changed significantly.....

If it was considered disgraceful why did the Greek people adopt it? And there was no united Greek empire after his death, that statement in itself is impossible.

oh yea, cuz ppl were so civil back then.

the mongol empire didn't expand to western europe cuz genghis died. but, his sons+ still managed to keep the middle east and asia part of the empire alive for 100 + yrs.

They still aren't civil, and that's my point. Look at my top 10 ranking, Khan is 3rd. Those "ancient cruelities" still happen today, and have happened recently under known leadership.

Im talking education wise. Alexander was a noble-educated and better mannered than a savage like Khan. You can compare him to others like Sun Tzu. Theres a big difference in the "depth of character" between two military leaders alike.

He's the Benjamin Franklin of the ancient world. You're 100% right. I ranked Alexander one step above Khan. However, because he had no education, and no premade empire for him to take to war, the empire he created is that much more impressive.

The reason why I ranked Alexander one spot up, is his still lasting effect he had with imposing hellenism. We still live in a greco-roman world (in the West atleast), and it's thanks to him.

dom, u are judging cruelty upon today ideas, and this is the biggest mistake regarding analyzing and understanding history. You cannot (and I really mean cannot) understand what happened there if you think from the point of view of nowadays ideas and mentalities.
Besides, you don't analyze the sources we have regarding his personalities and achievements: all sources that talk about how cruel he and his people were were written by the conquered, not by the conquerors. And this is the main aspect of what I stated in my last post. Therefore, we don't have an impartially source, therefore the sources we have must be interpreted with very much caution. This is what historians do.

Besides, u can be sure that the peoples conquered by the Romans were not very pleased by their attitude either. It's just a matter of who writes and what.

Thanks for picking up on my point, not realizing it, and throwing it back at me. Cruelty didn't exist until the UN. Even today, cruelty goes unchecked. For a military leader to be sucessful, it requires a certain degree of cruelty.

[southkorea321]

dom, u are judging cruelty upon today ideas, and this is the biggest mistake regarding analyzing and understanding history. You cannot (and I really mean cannot) understand what happened there if you think from the point of view of nowadays ideas and mentalities.
Besides, you don't analyze the sources we have regarding his personalities and achievements: all sources that talk about how cruel he and his people were were written by the conquered, not by the conquerors. And this is the main aspect of what I stated in my last post. Therefore, we don't have an impartially source, therefore the sources we have must be interpreted with very much caution. This is what historians do.

Besides, u can be sure that the peoples conquered by the Romans were not very pleased by their attitude either. It's just a matter of who writes and what.

+1

[southkorea321]

wow, "a savage like khan"

u know absolutely shit about genghis khan and the mongol empire. go read up in ur library, "amateur historian"

Oh I will, TO. Just dont talk like a little 8 year old boy-its starting to disturb me



Shouldnt he be here too?

[TOloseGT]

oh, woops, u can hear me? i wasn't talking at all

lawlz

[XemnasXD]

Khan was a great tactician, yeah no one can doubt that

its just that its reaally stupid to create an empire and leave no plans behind his death to safekeep it from dissolving.

and i know most military leaders were brutal in their killings, but Khan was most brutal of them all. Ive never regarded him as a guy with a bit of honor. he was literally a barbarian, bloodthirsty and born smart enough to cruelly maim/kill/rape everything everywhere he went. compare him to someone like Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great...
A guy who leaves the world divided more than ever, a guy who also maimed, killed, and raped everything everywhere he went. The only difference, his empire was smaller, and he was arrogant enough to impose his culture on the world.

Actually Alexander gave as much as he took culture wise. He adopted alot of persian and egyptian traditions and even some from India and brought them back with him to greece....

He died on his way back. And, he imposed hellenism on those cultures, bringing back with him very little. What you're saying is comparable to saying the conquistadors went to South America and brought back the culture. I wouldn't consider Gold, Chocolate, and Tabacco to be culture.

Just because he didn't make it back doesn't mean everything he picked up along the way didn't make it back. Read up on your Alexander stuff his indulgence in other cultures was so great some considered it disgraceful but still the Greek way of life was changed significantly.....

If it was considered disgraceful why did the Greek people adopt it? And there was no united Greek empire after his death, that statement in itself is impossible.
.

I never said anything about a united Greek empire and i said Some considered it fail. Alexander was extremely popular in his day. Consider the situation like a parent in the 1950's telling his kid that Rock n Roll was trash and terrible music. That doesn't stop the kid from becoming a fan of it for life the same way it didn't stop alot of greeks from picking up on this stuff which was in alot of ways an improvement to what they had at the time.....i know yoru a history buff but did you read up anything on Alexander....

[southkorea321]

oh, woops, u can hear me? i wasn't talking at all

lawlz

okay, now youre just being an idiot.

[dom]

I never said anything about a united Greek empire and i said Some considered it fail. Alexander was extremely popular in his day. Consider the situation like a parent in the 1950's telling his kid that Rock n Roll was trash and terrible music. That doesn't stop the kid from becoming a fan of it for life the same way it didn't stop alot of greeks from picking up on this stuff which was in alot of ways an improvement to what they had at the time.....i know yoru a history buff but did you read up anything on Alexander....

The difference is those Greeks, vast majority of which have never left their villages, don't have radio or TV to tell them about rock music in persia. All they hear is how Alexander conquered the barbarians, and the superior hellenistic culture has been imposed on them.

For giggles, here's a clip from my 3 hour lecture I had today:
http://boomp3.com/m/7d80c76dee56
Turn volume all the way up

[TOloseGT]

okay, now youre just being an idiot.

u'r ..... coming on here and preaching about ur "facts", thinking u know all that. u know shit.

try reading more than biased pieces of shit.

[dom]

okay, now youre just being an idiot.

u'r ..... coming on here and preaching about ur "facts", thinking u know all that. u know shit.

try reading more than biased pieces of shit.

LOL.

Unbiased pieces of literature in history.

u phail like zeplin catching fire

[XemnasXD]

I never said anything about a united Greek empire and i said Some considered it fail. Alexander was extremely popular in his day. Consider the situation like a parent in the 1950's telling his kid that Rock n Roll was trash and terrible music. That doesn't stop the kid from becoming a fan of it for life the same way it didn't stop alot of greeks from picking up on this stuff which was in alot of ways an improvement to what they had at the time.....i know yoru a history buff but did you read up anything on Alexander....

The difference is those Greeks, vast majority of which have never left their villages, don't have radio or TV to tell them about rock music in persia. All they hear is how Alexander conquered the barbarians, and the superior hellenistic culture has been imposed on them.

For giggles, here's a clip from my 3 hour lecture I had today:
http://boomp3.com/m/7d80c76dee56
Turn volume all the way up

Again Alexander did more to spread ad mix cultures around than he did to snuff them out. Yes areas were heavily influenced by hellenistic culture but hellenistic culture because influenced by the Egyptians and the Persians....

[southkorea321]

okay, now youre just being an idiot.

u'r ..... coming on here and preaching about ur "facts", thinking u know all that. u know shit.

try reading more than biased pieces of shit.

I know...arent I being such an uptight, smart-aleck idiot? It makes you just want to kill me, doesnt it? What does what I write about have to do with you anyway? Your business what I write about? and cut the four letter words please-you dont sound tough.

[TOloseGT]

lmao, i'm making it my business what u write cuz i'm bored.

dom's right, the winners rewrite history, the losers fail.

calling genghis khan savage is ..... ridiculous, and u know it. unless u don't, prick. (ooh, not a four lettered word)

[dom]

I never said anything about a united Greek empire and i said Some considered it fail. Alexander was extremely popular in his day. Consider the situation like a parent in the 1950's telling his kid that Rock n Roll was trash and terrible music. That doesn't stop the kid from becoming a fan of it for life the same way it didn't stop alot of greeks from picking up on this stuff which was in alot of ways an improvement to what they had at the time.....i know yoru a history buff but did you read up anything on Alexander....

The difference is those Greeks, vast majority of which have never left their villages, don't have radio or TV to tell them about rock music in persia. All they hear is how Alexander conquered the barbarians, and the superior hellenistic culture has been imposed on them.

For giggles, here's a clip from my 3 hour lecture I had today:
http://boomp3.com/m/7d80c76dee56
Turn volume all the way up

Again Alexander did more to spread ad mix cultures around than he did to snuff them out. Yes areas were heavily influenced by hellenistic culture but hellenistic culture because influenced by the Egyptians and the Persians....

Surely. I bet Egyptian eye-liner was all the rage in Athens.

[XemnasXD]

you normally use sarcasm when you have nothing better to say so im calling this done....

[TOloseGT]

Surely. I bet Egyptian eye-liner was all the rage in Athens.

lmao, history buff my ass.

[southkorea321]

lmao, i'm making it my business what u write cuz i'm bored.

dom's right, the winners rewrite history, the losers fail.

calling genghis khan savage is ..... ridiculous, and u know it. unless u don't, prick. (ooh, not a four lettered word)

get a drink and get a life.