Talk:Genghis motherfucking Khan

Would the guy who keeps fucking up this article with his history faggotry please fuck off ad die.

"Khagaan"? Dude got the title of Khagan posthumously.--Emerald Claw (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Khagaan is closer to the actual pronunciation of the word, which would be 'Hakaan'.

Who the fuck wrote this?

This article is historically complety wrong.

He only had ONE wife! His only goal was to conquer China! He only atacked the others because of lack of respect. Also compared to other persons at that time he wasn't really a monster. End of story. And as a side note, if you want a good read, try the biography Conqueror of the World by Leo De Hartog. Many a smar/tg/uy may find it worthwhile

Negative Impact

The present day countries covering the lands the Khan and his descendants conquered are authoritarian regimes that are un-democratic, oppose free speech and free markets. The Khans murder of millions led to this. This is the grim dark legacy of his life, and Ghengis Khan is the biggest arsehole in history.

And the fact they are authoritarian regimes is unrelated to Khan. So the point is? --2001:8003:3841:3800:E5A3:4A35:BC7F:4038 07:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

None of those things are necessarily related to Temujin beyond history being a big chain of cause and effect and one of them is flat out untrue. If you actually believe Russia and China are anti-capitalist you are literally falling for Russian and Chinese propaganda meant to make internet tankies like them. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that China, Russia and Central Asian countries are authoritarian regimes is related to the Khan for the following reasons. The Mongols wiped out developing civilisations in these lands covering these countries. There was no opportunity for merchant classes to develop, who want progress and freedoms to create wealth. This then fuels political reform and allies itself with principles of democracy. Instead there was an invasion by a violent foreign power which led to a cultural conservative backlash when the Mongol empire collapsed. People would put their faith in strong men to protect them from foreign barbarians, and these leaders would not give up power and wealth. Serfdom in Russia, isolationism in China, religious fanaticism in Persia. The renaissance and enlightenment happened in the lands not conquered by the Mongols for a reason. Genghis Khan has directly inspired GW fluff and its appropriate and reasonable to discuss him. And its also reasonable to point out that despite the fact it happened hundreds of years ago, the killing of millions of people then still has an impact on today. If discussing his military achievements, I think it reasonable to mention how this had a huge negative impact on human societal development in places like Russia, China and Central Asia. The page on the God Emperor discusses how his enthronement has shaped humanity. On a side point, whats great about capitalism is that it requires openness and transparency to operate, things associated with democracy, and suffers from corruption. There will be obvious corruption in the West, but I think corruption and a lack of transparency is more prevalent in places like Russia. I didn't fully understand the comment regarding Russian and Chinese propaganda; but to clarify my previous point, it would have been more appropriate to state these countries oppose free markets based on democratic principles by the very manner in which they conduct their societies. Again, the Khan is one of if not the biggest arsehole in history, much like Horus in the 40K universe.

Forget Napoleonic politics affecting Russia, it was all Khan 1000 fucking years before. Forget the Russo-Japanese War outsetting China which eventually resulted in their occupation in WWII, which then turned them communist with Russia's help, it was all Khan. The Renaissance occurred during a period of international trade (much of which was with the East, including China) and high literacy, but that was pure coincidence - it only happened at a random time there because Khan didn't get that far. You also forget the Genghis never reached Europe - he only touched Asia, his successors were the ones that made it all the way to Eastern Europe. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Kracked Mynd, you make valid historical points. You also suggest that I imply that history following the Khan has no bearing on subsequent historical events or the present day. I didn't and I don't. You have constructed a straw man argument. In addition to the Khan, I also mentioned his descendants and the mongols in general who conquered lands including Central Asia and Russia. I never said the Khan made it all the way to Eastern Europe. I am unclear what point about the Renaissance you are trying to make, but the Renaissance primarily concerned the revival of European art and literature. As Crazy Cryptek points out, history can be viewed as a chain of cause and effect. I think it reasonable to suggest that the Khan's actions had a negative effect on human history and development.

And I think it more reasonable to note that it's reductionistic to assume that said effects were purely negative in a way that makes me wonder if you think their effects existed in a vacuum. None of you are historians (including myself, but at least I acknowledge when I'm outside my scope of expertise), so stop pretending that you are anything beyond a bunch of dabblers unless you can show me the crystal ball that lets you see how history would have proceeded if he didn't exist.--Newerfag (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - none of us have the expertise to declare anything historical as having some factual impact beyond our own common sense. That said, there is nothing wrong with "dabbling" or amateur debate; no one here is pretending to be an expert or professional in anything (I, for one, am not in anything, given my complete lack of college education, unless you count working a fryer and a cash register as an expertise).

Moving on, I do hold that my point was correct - saying the actions of Genghis Khan were immoral and bad is one thing, but saying that they caused modern authoritarianism gives even the largest contiguous land empire in history too much credence. I agree that the unrest that followed their conquest might have contributed to later dictatorial regimes, but I still maintain it is outside of common sense to assume that there is a causality. :::All that said, I don't think anyone, even historians, could say what is and is not a negative effect. If Genghis, or any of his predecessors, hadn't conquered, raped, and raided everything that they had, how would the "chain of cause and effect" have changed? If just one city had been ignored, if just one noble had escaped their wrath, how much more "positive" or "negative" would things be? No one knows, but without years of studying the topic, I don't think that even making the connection is within the scope of this argument (however, I do think that saying that it isn't the only contributing factor, and is probably, ultimately, no more of a variable than any other regime in individual areas is reasonable) --Kracked Mynd (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Kracked Mynd, a well argued piece. Newerfag, I never claimed or pretended to be anything other than someone starting a conversation. If it was a requirement to always bring a crystal ball to a conversation, people wouldn't talk to each other.