Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Bloodworth, Mar 8, 2018.
Beats blanket statements about middle schoolers.
The Mongols would ask a city or people to surrender before they attacked. If the city agreed to surrender they would be allowed to live. If the city refused to surrender they would be wiped out. This was a scenario that was common in the ancient world and many people's understood this to be how things worked. When the Mongols attacked Baghdad, they asked for Baghdad to surrender. The city refused and when the Mongols attacked and won the city they practically wiped out the population. I'm not exactly sure what the population was, something like two million residents. The city didn't recover an equivalent population until something like the 1700's.
According to this ^^^, the population of China was halved from 120 million to 60 million in the 13th and 14th centuries (although some claim many Chinese fled south and lived unregistered). The population of Persia may have been reduced from 2.5 million to 250,000. It's estimated that half of the population of the Kievan Rus died as a result of the Mongol invasion and that Hungary lost half its population, or 1 million people.
The oasis city of Merv had 700,000 people killed while the city of Nishapur had 1 million killed.
Do you mean what civilizations have already been wiped out 1000 years ago?
The Trojans were wiped out unless you believe the Romans are actually Trojan refugees, but that is much more than a 1000 years.
There is also the Dzungars who the chinese genocided, but the Chinese did not kill their women and children. Instead the Chinese took them in.
The Jews have had their asses served back to them on a plate a multitude of times over these past 1000 years and before. The Jews have been the punching bag of Europe and ME for a long time.
So would any group not be around today?
Note: most modern historians think nishapur is exaggerated by a lot. It was smaller than Merv, which was nearly exterminated. After a week-long siege and surrender, no less.
From what I've read Khan wasn't the genocidal maniac a lot of stories paint him to be. The idea of his ruthlessness I think stems more from his military capacity to completely outwork enemy armies on the battlefield, and the Mongol strategy had many advantages over a lot of the nation's they would engage against, it wasn't simply a matter of superior strategy but lots of logistical factors involved as well.
As for putting populations to the sword, if I remember correctly there is historical evidence only for 1 mass civilian massacre occuring. Could be wrong though.
Anyways I'd that's the strategy in today's day and age, Western Civilization wins hands down.
i guess i was thinking about governance - you and Quipling are correct. as you said, though, this was de rigueur at the time (one of the reasons i don't give Andrew Jackson that much grief is that his genocidal conquest of the American Indians was also business as usual, in that era).
like i said earlier, the closest thing i can think of (from a US perspective) to what the OP would like to see is the way Nixon conducted his foreign policy in the Vietnam war.
our activities there were barbaric (and illegal), but seem to fit the bill for what he'd like to see. NHB warfare. we killed around 2 million civilians in that war and created over 10 million refugees.
A few weeks before ordering an escalation of the Vietnam War, President Nixon matter-of-factly raised the idea of using a nuclear bomb. His national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, quickly dissuaded him.
Mr. Nixon's abrupt suggestion, buried in 500 hours of tapes released today at the National Archives, came after Mr. Kissinger had presented a variety of options for stepping up the war effort, among them attacking power plants and docks, in an April 25, 1972, conversation in the Executive Office Building in Washington.
''I'd rather use the nuclear bomb,'' Mr. Nixon responded.
''That, I think, would just be too much,'' Mr. Kissinger replied.
''The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?'' Mr. Nixon asked. ''I just want you to think big.''
@Bloodworth would be favorably inclined to President Nixon, i'd reckon.
Hey @Bloodworth, what the fuck is this thread actually about?
In 2018 which groups would no longer be around if wars were alalways fought like ghengis Kahn or the Persians.
Who would be the leading invader?
Which past? Where? There were cultures in the past who had a more ritualized concept of war, like several celtic and Native American tribes. Those would count as "more compassionate" in the sense that they didn't commit genocide.
Again, are you talking about how the Ancient Greeks waged war? The Romans? Huns?
Be more specific, please. Or go educate yourself on the history of warfare or something. Just because you're passionate about something doesn't mean you should actually share your opinion on it.
ahoy President Homer,
i was wondering the same thing.
This thread is stupid, and you should feel bad. You can't compare modern times and armies to ancient ones. Also, you have no understanding of history or the world at large, and your OP is a huge pile of shit.
We all know what you're driving at, and we don't care because it's idiotic. Go somewhere else if you want to fantasize about eradicating Muslims, etc.
What civilizations would prosper today and which would be eliminated if the mentality of the conquer and kill all days never stopped
The Persians tolerated different religions and didn't massacre everyone they encountered, no.
Not taking about modern times. Just what the world would look like today if the times of invade , conquer, and kill all never stopped .
So what were they trying to do to the Greeks. Introduce gentrification?
So if the global mentality was that of a general in a Rome total war game, everyone would get nuked and we're all dead, the end.
i gotta head to work, but off the top of my head i gotta figure that the Japanese would no longer exist - outside of zoos and sanctuaries - because a President Khan would have unloaded a fusillade of atomic bombs on the island.
You work ? Lol
Separate names with a comma.