Grestest Warrior of World - Genghis Khan

[RazPaK]

He sacked entire cities leaving nothing remaining, if they would not surrender, only so that the next city would be inclined to surrender. Scare tactics? Of course. He spread terror among people.

 

[Kazhugu]

I thought Indians hated terrorists, If anything Chengis was the biggest terrorist ever.

why..? he shitted the abbasids many times over...?

genghis was a military genius and only did what other conquerors of his time did....

 

[Avisheik]

He sacked entire cities leaving nothing remaining, if they would not surrender, only so that the next city would be inclined to surrender. Scare tactics? Of course. He spread terror among people.

Even if the next city surrendered he would kill men from that city and take the rest as slaves.

I think his greatest strength was cavlery. If his army had fought in swamps or mountains he would have lost

 

[Kazhugu]

Contrary to popular believe Temujin or better known as Genghis Khan was not a Muslim.

he followed a shamanistic religion called Tengriism...

 

[Android]

I am not saying this 'cause He[R.A] belonged to Islam but because he deserves to be called the "Greatest Warrior of History", he achieved impossibles.

His name was khan and he was a terrorist but he was not a muslim

 

[Avisheik]

His name was khan and he was a terrorist but he was not a muslim

Actually the title khan originated from the mongols, which means king or lord. The muslims adopted it later

 

[hunter_hunted]

Contrary to popular believe Temujin or better known as Genghis Khan was not a Muslim.

DO u really have to tell us this as if we dont know.

 

[Android]

DO u really have to tell us this as if we dont know.

See the earlier posts on first page

 

[niaz]

We have to define what do we mean by greatest warrior?

If we mean greatest conqueror, historically it was definitely Genghis Khan. His armies conquered more land area than anyone else.

If we mean greatest general; Genghis did not command many of his campaigns personally, in such a comparison there are other generals such as Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hazrat Khalid bin Walid(RA), Amir Taimur, Attila the Hun. George Washington, Georgi Zhukov, Duke of Wellington and Heinz Guderian etc. can also arguably lay the claim.

If by warrior we mean winner in one to one combat then Hazrat Ali (RA) would probably rank first.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Even if the next city surrendered he would kill men from that city and take the rest as slaves.

I think his greatest strength was cavlery. If his army had fought in swamps or mountains he would have lost

Right on there. Change the terrain and Genghis Khan and his men were likely to flounder. That was his luck.

 

[Kambojaric]

@ Niaz: Good post. I might also add that vast stretches of land "conquered" by the Mongols were in fact barren lands such as Siberia and parts of Central Asia. The Likes of Alexander, Cyrus, Timur however conquered densely populated areas such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, South Asia. That is not to say that Timujins feats are any less "great". However far too often we just tend to look at the map and compare who conquered more as a sign of who is greater. Instead more factors need to be taken into account such as opponents, what kind of units are being commanded (including their nationalities), population of the area being conquered etc.

why..? he shitted the abbasids many times over...?

genghis was a military genius and only did what other conquerors of his time did....

So because he "shitted" over a Muslim empire he was not a terrorist? I can of course respond with an equally irresponsible post and say:

Ghaznavi was the greatest warrior of all time. He shitted over Hindus many times over? Ghaznavi was a military genius and only did what other conquerors of this time did.


Of course i dont believe he was the greatest warrior of all time but what these warriors did to their conquered people is pretty much the same. Timujin raised the great cities of Central Asia such as Bukhara, Merv to the ground. To the locals of that area he is still a terrorist even if you may see him as "great warrior", similarily to you Ghaznavi may be a terrorist for all of his atrocities against Hindus, but following your logic of claiming Timujin only followed the norm of his time, Ghaznavi also did exactly that, and hence he should also be proclaimed as a great warrior and not a terrorist. Are you willing to do that?

 

[saiyan0321]

his greatest achievement was uniting mongolia he even though was a prince he was abandoned and that man literally started from zero untied the mongol under a single banner and went off to conquer the world.... he also destroyed and attacked the major powers of asia chinese who had technology and persians who had all the money and gold...and plz not this nonsense babble of the church who then believed that mongols were gods wrath to muslims who were winning against the christian army and controlling the holy land. the pope had a major freak out when the mongols attacked hungary and holland and ravaged them to the ground. its their bigest luck that the mongols had interest in east and they left europe or the pope would have been forced fed boiling silver like he did to scholars of his conquered empires they were ruthless i guess thats why they had to face little rebellions and could conquer all they like

 

[waraich66]

We have to define what do we mean by greatest warrior?

If we mean greatest conqueror, historically it was definitely Genghis Khan. His armies conquered more land area than anyone else.

If we mean greatest general; Genghis did not command many of his campaigns personally, in such a comparison there are other generals such as Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hazrat Khalid bin Walid(RA), Amir Taimur, Attila the Hun. George Washington, Georgi Zhukov, Duke of Wellington and Heinz Guderian etc. can also arguably lay the claim.

If by warrior we mean winner in one to one combat then Hazrat Ali (RA) would probably rank first.

Genghis Khan defeated highly advance armies with his unique war strategy and war machine.

Khalid bin Waleed defeated stronger armies with divine power.

 

[Star√ation]

Is this supposed to be a historical class?

 

[Bang Galore]

@ Niaz: Good post. I might also add that vast stretches of land "conquered" by the Mongols were in fact barren lands such as Siberia and parts of Central Asia. The Likes of Alexander, Cyrus, Timur however conquered densely populated areas such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, South Asia. That is not to say that Timujins feats are any less "great". However far too often we just tend to look at the map and compare who conquered more as a sign of who is greater. Instead more factors need to be taken into account such as opponents, what kind of units are being commanded (including their nationalities), population of the area being conquered etc.

So because he "shitted" over a Muslim empire he was not a terrorist? I can of course respond with an equally irresponsible post and say:

Ghaznavi was the greatest warrior of all time. He shitted over Hindus many times over? Ghaznavi was a military genius and only did what other conquerors of this time did.

Of course i dont believe he was the greatest warrior of all time but what these warriors did to their conquered people is pretty much the same. Timujin raised the great cities of Central Asia such as Bukhara, Merv to the ground. To the locals of that area he is still a terrorist even if you may see him as "great warrior", similarily to you Ghaznavi may be a terrorist for all of his atrocities against Hindus, but following your logic of claiming Timujin only followed the norm of his time, Ghaznavi also did exactly that, and hence he should also be proclaimed as a great warrior and not a terrorist. Are you willing to do that?

Chingis Khan was as great a warrior as you could possibly find. He did change completely the ethnic structure in some central asian countries, an example would be Bukhara. The present population probably owe their existence to Chingis Khan's army, difficult to see why they would consider him a terrorist.

Your point about other warriors like Mahmud of Ghazni is well taken. One must refrain from judging people of a different period in history by today's standards. Only, if even during their period, they were considered particularly barbaric should they be described as such & even then with caution.