81–90 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard for me to see them as "more evil" than many other pre-modern groups. It's such an arbitrary framing.
Please substitute the term you typically use for practitioners of genocide.
“Total war” wasn’t a thing in premodern history because every war was a total war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mongol conquests were roughly comparable to the European conquest of the Americas. Both toppled great empires and may have killed ~10% of world population in a few generations. And both were more noteworthy due to their large-scale success than their brutality. While both waves of conquest were brutal even by contemporary standards, they were not extraordinary brutal. Being an absolute monster is a part of the job de…
Right. Europeans in the Americas and Mongols in Eurasia did what was rational: both had significant, incomparable advantage in military technology and both used it for their advantage according to the standards of their time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please substitute the term you typically use for practitioners of genocide.
It may surprise you but basically every empire did genocide at one point or another. “Total war” wasn’t a thing in premodern history because every war was a total war.
Total war in particular usually involves civilians as targets, and most civilians were far from the battlefield. WWII changed that, when bombers could reach deep beyond the front lines. Without bombers (and missiles), London would have been untouched by the war, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard for me to see them as "more evil" than many other pre-modern groups. It's such an arbitrary framing.
Please substitute the term you typically use for practitioners of genocide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please substitute the term you typically use for practitioners of genocide.
It may surprise you but basically every empire did genocide at one point or another. “Total war” wasn’t a thing in premodern history because every war was a total war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please substitute the term you typically use for practitioners of genocide.
It may surprise you but basically every empire did genocide at one point or another. “Total war” wasn’t a thing in premodern history because every war was a total war.
Total war is a separate concept from genocide. Though both can be practiced in the same war, targeting economic and political support for war does not necessarily mean systemically eliminating a population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please substitute the term you typically use for practitioners of genocide.
I don't think pre-modern conflicts can be framed under the modern concept of genocide very well. In any case the Mongols did not set out to obliterate specific groups because of ethnicity, race, religion, etc., per se. Maybe wanting tribute or territory is a stupid reason to obliterate a city, but it's not motivated by ethnic or racial animus. Similarly, revenge on an empire for the death of ambassadors that leads to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may surprise you but basically every empire did genocide at one point or another. “Total war” wasn’t a thing in premodern history because every war was a total war.
AFAIK that isn't true. Political powers (e.g., feudal lords, kings, etc.) didn't have the resources to conduct warfare on that scale. As examples, centralized government and its resources didn't exist like today, troops had to go home to plant and harvest, and armies depended on local food production in order to survive. Total war in particular usually involves civilians as targets, and most civilians were far from t…
IMO we should not look at Genghis Kahn's Empire fondly. After listening to Hardcore History's Wrath of the Khans, I think they have been the most evil group humanity has produced so far. Time seems to heal all wounds but Genghis Khan sure seemed to have made a lot of wounds.
Who looks at the Mongol empire fondly?
The Mongols were a mix of modern and violent and ruthless before he (Chinggis Khan) died that you don't really see elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mongol conquests were roughly comparable to the European conquest of the Americas. Both toppled great empires and may have killed ~10% of world population in a few generations. And both were more noteworthy due to their large-scale success than their brutality. While both waves of conquest were brutal even by contemporary standards, they were not extraordinary brutal. Being an absolute monster is a part of the job de…
The Europeans didn't topple any empire in the Americas. They collapsed by themselves due to the sickness brought over by the Europeans before they made contact. It would have been logistically impossible to topple an empire overseas.
Maybe an oversimplification to assert "the Europeans didn't topple any empire in the Americas"?