ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- Check out our Patreon page: / teded
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/history-vs-...
He was one of the most fearsome warlords who ever lived, waging an unstoppable conquest across the Eurasian continent. But was Genghis Khan a vicious barbarian or a unifier who paved the way for the modern world? Alex Gendler puts this controversial figure on trial in History vs Genghis Khan.
Lesson by Alex Gendler, animation by Brett Underhill.
"He killed 40 Million people."
"Ye but the postal system."
U.S Meridan
He did not kill that many people
This series can be ridicilous sometimes
@@parsananmon i agree
So did the Achaemenids, without that level of destruction along the way
Postman Khan
"You must have done great sins because your God sent punishment like me upon to you"
-Genghis Khan
That's what he said to caliph of Khoresmian empire
hacker giraffe Wow
"If God wanted you to live he would not have created me"
-Soldier
Damn, is this really true ?
Btw i dont get the message of this video, are they saying that genghis khan's action were good in some cases ?
@@nshk7163 the video is not trying to label him as an amazing leader or a monster. its up to you to choose what you want to see.
When you are so successful that you get canceled 793 years later on twitter.
But never forgotten in our heart
Ghengis khan is my favourite, he's like the eminem of the old times, he's good but people still hate him for some reason
Twitter should cancelled itself
@@mridulkanti1995 the app or the twitter community?
@@francisbacon4363 I dont like mongolia in general
The defendent could have said"He killed millions but also created millions"
Peace Uchiha 😂
Killed 40
Created 12
I see why he didn't
True that
He killed millions
But also created billions
There's no "created" . Killing is killing. If i kill a guy and give birth to 2 kids does it mean am a good person??
British empire was responsible for almost 29 million deaths in India alone during 19 th century. But unfortunately history is always written by winners
Joseph Augustine in genghis khans time,he was responsible for killing 11% of EARTHS population.If genghis khan didnt die he would have slaughtered the ancestors of the 29million deaths in india
Joseph Augustine I agree...
Harish Ganesan that's the stupidest thing I've heard. Would you think differently if your parents and yourself were part of that "non significant percentage" ? Every single life is equally important regardless of global demographics. Get some sense into your worthless head.
Have you even heard of the word called 'sarcasm' ?
Genghis Khan caused global cool down lol
Do "History vs. Hitler"
I double dare you TED-Ed
I would love to see that, after all, they could use this as a blueprint.
Albos Hajdari His story is actually really interesting. He did have a terrible childhood (not surprised) and dealt with abuse. He wanted to become an artist. I actually saw his artwork and he was a talented young man but for some reason he didn’t make it into art school and then he served in WW1 and that changed him as well. He felt empty afterwards and still wished to die as an artist. The only people who would befriend him were a group of anti semites who taught him how to hate the Jews and the rest is history. We could also add religion into his defense because what people of the church were saying about Jews at the time and even today, really influenced his thoughts on wanting to do anything for the church.
I would love to
Well the Nazis did push science forward and warfare with their unmaned tank
@@boistired6825 worth mentioning that Jew's were blamed in a very anti Semitic way in the Bible until doctrine was changed in 1964(for Christ death etc ) . In turn at Hitler's time anti Semetism was huge in Lithuania,Poland,Germany etc ...Jew's were hated for religious reasons,jealousy then they retreated so your contact with Jew's would be rent etc and they also controlled parties in a soros like way ....so they were really hated (unfairly)
I love how the Judge is learning while they both argue or debate.
I know right?
It is like a representation of us, amazing isn't it.
@@blauwbeer556 definitely
Kinda like real court? Who woulda thought? Neat huh?
That is because the Judge is the personification of the audience
I want them to make
History vs British Empire
They killed all over the globe
They did caused about a 100 million casualities
Especially in India
The history is always undermined.
If you really think about it no group in the world is ever crystal clean. There are always blemishes on them. Those who think themselves morally superior often turn around and do exactly what they preached against.
They starved 4 million Irish people to death during the Great Hunger alone, not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed by Cromwell and others, before and after. It is remembered in Ireland, as well as the "famine" in India
History is written by the winners unfortunately, hopefully in the next few decades the British and their politicians will recognise the crimes their empire committed across the globe. Horrible entity.
@@sambingham1196 That's what empires do. British Empire simply was more successful. Saying as an Indian.
@@koustavchatterjee8645 well, you rigth, thats what empires do, but, a genocide is something very... It's just not good
"Careful what you call him. You MAY b related."
"...Wut?"
I died at that part his face lol!
Me too
I had to watch a different video in class and it said the same thing. Really crazy
It is true.
*w h a t* .
Like me
Was Khan a brutal conqueror or a great unifier? Yes, he was both of those things. It's absurd to claim that he was a terrible monster without any redeeming qualities, but it's equally absurd to emphasize the good while downplaying or ignoring his negative qualities.
Yes, just like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon.
Very astute. It's a rather illogical idea to assume that he absolutely had to either be a monster or a saint and it is pleasing to see that there are at least some people who understand that. My commendations.
+Reasonableidiocy Yes. To fully understand the actions and decisions the Khan made one must actually live in the time era.
The sense of morality we have today is way different than that of the time the Khan lived in.
For a peasant to die at the hands of a Lord, it is not seen as obscene. For a peasant to kill a Lord? A heavy bounty on his head. This was the norm of everyday life in these times. By the way, I am not one to justify killings and mass murders but even in Europe or anywhere else in the world at that time, death was as common as the flu.
My family and I use to laugh about the line, "Almost anyone could be related to him. Until my dad took a DNA test for fun and found out we are descendants through him. We are Puerto Ricans and it was the last thing we expected. 😂😂😂😂
daamm that must feel weird that you are related to a warlord that lived 800 years ago on the other side of the planet
Related how? smh
Which DNA test did you use? questioning the accuracy of that.
Ohh we too took a DNA test out of curiosity, but we're found to be negative, the doctor said you're one of the rare people who are not connected to him
@@sancharisaha1607 This is getting childish. Puerto Ricans aren't related to Mongols. Not even remotely Period. Silly.
Who’s here after twitter decided to cancel him 800 years later.
What?? Your kidding right? Is it about the new Mulan remake
@@revthescatman137 no sadly
Wait what?
@@brehisvdnd1289 Are you serious? What's it about?
cancel culture is the definition of regressive
When the judge shouted "KHANNNNNNNN!!!" I was dying hahahahaha
Captain Kirk would be proud
khan literally means king in our language
Shah Rukh Khan 😂
Prosecutor: I see your honor is familiar with Ghengis Khan.
I thought he said something, you know what I mean
now that's what i call a mighty...
*khanqueror*
+GlitchyShadow13 kek
OUT,NOW
stop it!!!!! get out!
damn
ok children chill out. Your all probably descendants of the great Khan anyways
I love this video, as a Mongolian myself. The way they pronounced the name was very good undoubtedly one of the best pronouncing I’ve ever heard in foreign youtube videos
Harin th
he was actually half nomadic turkic tribe and half mongolian
"Foreign" TH-cam videos?
@@kevinbergin9971 Yes, I assume as in non-Mongolian from the context.
You mean the videos by the "western" TH-camrs, because almost all the east/south Asian & middle eastern countries call him ”Chingez Khan"
"He killed 40 million people..."
Thor: He's adopted...
LOL
The tendency to glorify expansionist european empires as cradles of civilization (Rome, Machedonia, The franks, etc) while dismissing Ghenghis Khan as "Barbaric" is a pretty colossal historical bias.
Part of the issues (not all of it) is that the Mongols didn't keep written accounts. Most of our knowledge of the time is written by those who feared and despised them. This also partially true for many non European empires
"Machedonia" lol
They didn't kill of most of the population thought, did they? Some countries attached by the Mongols lost at least 3rd of they population. That's not the same level
@@melindam2776 i think it's a strategy to strike fear to enemies's heart. Purge a rebell city and 100 cities will surrender/not stand again. Reduce much more unnecessary bloodshed.
But i could be wrong anyway
There was no glorification at all in this video???
If Genghis Khan was European he would be called Genghis the Great lol
Dude i am Mongolian and we know better then u if we talk on Chingis Khaan
+Barhasbaatar Chimed-ochir I'm saying chingus isn't given his proper spot in history because he's not European. So western history covers up his accomplishments and demonize him as a murderer not a great leader.
+Hugh Jenas McGraw hill , American high school textbooks
+Hugh Jenas Yeah, American text books tend to have a bit of a bias on... well... everything.
+Renzhi Wang he was but you know how Europeans do they'll rewrite history covering up all his atrocities while highlighting everything positive about him lol
My man dominated the world like he was playing a war game in easy mode
I learned about Genghis Khan this year in my history class and I personally think that he can’t be considered fully good or bad. Despite the fact that his campaigns were brutal and merciless, he did do all of the positive things mentioned in the video as well. And one of his brutal acts was deserved because this man had killed his men and taken the stuff they tried to trade with them or something like that, well they came back and poured molten silver into the man’s head. I don’t remember all of the specific details of that off of the top of my head, but I think it was justified. I also think his attacking of the chin dynasty was justified, but was still very brutal. Overall, he did a lot of good but he was pretty brutal in how he achieved it.
True every invasions of his war was justified.
If you're invading West to East you're a great leader, if you're invading East to West you're a barbarian. Genghis Khan legacy shows he's a great leader.
Puglous Khan does not mean "great" it means "leader." Also, Genghis did far more good than bad. War is war people died. He only destroyed cities that rebelled, as did Alexander. And Genghis did not kill 11% of the population, he and his descendants did, and he had many descendants. Also, Genghis had unparalleled peace (the Pax Mongolica) in his country, real religious freedoms (not to be seen again until "modern" times), as well a a real merit system instead of blood promotions.
+Dakota Williams and genocide is genocide
kagen lim I agree, but I disagree that it was genocide. He had no intentions of destroying cultures and peoples. He merely had to make examples. Every culture under Mongol rule flourished because of how incredibly tolerant Genghis Khan was with other religions and cultures.
Dakota Williams disagreed.Kiev Rus,northern China are all examples of Genghis khan taste of extermination of foreign cultures other than his own
kagen lim what do you mean? Mongol culture embraced Chinese culture. Just look at the literature that came out under mongol rule. The Russian states also had their culture grow and evolve into the modern pan-slavic ideals (which only spread throughout the Russian states after Mongol rule) we've seen in history and today. The thought that Genghis destroyed culture because it wasn't mongol just can not be supported
Cenghis Khan is the best. Why? He conquered Russia
IN WINTER
could u explain this lol?
@@ight2060 No country was able to fight Russia and win because their armies starved to death in the winter.
@@kevin8712 genghis khan army took cattle and stuff with them and set up colonies, so it was probably easier, i think dunno.
Mavi Kartal 😎😎😎😎😎
i tried doing that once.. never again
If the teacher in my school taught me history like this, I would've ended with doing history honours
brotha
Thankfully I had a lot of influence from Assassins Creed and a legend of a 3rd grade elementary teacher so I’m currently in AP history courses and doing well in them
@@JotaroKujo-nj4bx fire
Genghis khan got cancelled he’s dropping a apology vid tmro
😂😂
Isn’t it because non Mongolians were making false things up?? I would be shocked if one historian read the book named Mongoliin nuush tovchoi which has the exact facts of every thing about Gengis khan
"And what's so great about invasion and slaughter"
Almost every country ever: *sweatdrops*
:))) i just love that none dare to argue with this 😂
I don't think it's wise to put our modern moral standards against old morals
What was great about invasion nd slaughter was defending yourself, if you had big neighbors you would have to get rid of them or else they might get rid of you
"Almost every country ever" Which one in America beside the United States?
so?
Murder is murder. People were horrified at it in the time as well.
Genghis Khan was doing what pretty much every other warlord had done until modern times. Except he did it better (or worse depending on perspective).
+PsychoticSpartan Exactly. He was no different than other conquerers. He was simply a better military tactician than the other conquerors at that time, who had the desire to unite the world under one empire.
+PsychoticSpartan Most warlords weren't as thorough in their destruction as the Mongols.
TheBrother171 Because unlike other conquerors he had a highly mobile and effective fighting force that could clear the distance that most other armies just could not. Like I said he was better at it than others before him.
PsychoticSpartan That is a false equivalence. Many rulers were in a perfect position to massacre their enemies down to the last child and destroy cultural wealth, yet Genghis Khan carried it through.
SlyBiffrons And then? Those people were not conquerors. Try to stay on subject.
I love how the judge doesn't recognize people like Richard Nixon or King Henry VIII but shouts out loud when he sees Gengus Khan
How could you forget your great great great great great great grandpa?
"Carefull what you call him, you may be related"
That killed me XD
I've always found Genghis to be a very interesting historical character and yet he's hardly ever mentioned. We get a ton of Alexander the Great related stuff but almost none of the Khan when, realistically, Genghis actually conquered twice as much land as Alexander the Great. And he's the father of all boot strap/self-made man ideals too.
He was born to a minor chief and the second (stolen) wife in a small tribe. He went off to his betrothed's tribe as was the custom but then his father died and he was sent home. Where upon he and his mother, as well as the first wife and all the children, were abandoned for fear of starvation, his father's enemies, and not wanting to be led by young boys.
After several years of living in Mongolia with just his mothers and siblings, he was captured and turned into a slave. He escaped and convinced the family of his betrothed to let the two of them marry. They did and she became a kidnapped bride herself. He hunted them down and actually rescued her (this would result in the birth of a son that they weren't sure was the Khan's.)
Afterward? He went on to unite the tribes and conquer the world, because why stop there, right?
How is this not the most epic 'self-made man' tale out there?
Kendrahf true, genghis conquered a lot of territory, if you only use size as a measure, but lots of it is vast barely populated space with no possible resistance - while alexander conquered the most powerful countries and cultures of his time, densely populated and highly advanced
The more I read the history about him, the more I realize he destined to be King. From 9 years old, after his father departure, his father's enemy never let his family lead peaceful life. He did not have much choices, either be strong or die. He protected his family from early ages and fought with many tribes in order to survive. That's how he protected his family and himself.
kurojima What? China and Russia were just chump change? Genghis conquered all the surrounding countries/lands around him. He conquered Russia, for pities sake, a feat that has yet to be repeated even in this modern age. Perhaps if Hitler had followed Genghis' example instead of Napoleon, things would've ended differently.
He had a lot of resistance and he came up with unique battle strategies to deal with them. Later on, he was able to talk people into submission... And how is this less admirable than Alexander? He used his brains as well as military might to do what he did and he wasn't a straight up conqueror.
Which circles back to the truest point of all: Genghis wasn't trained to fulfill this role nor did he have a ready made army at his hand OR even a country to fund his wars. He was abandoned at age 9, left to die in the incredibly harsh land of Mongolia. Would Alexander the Great have survived if he and his mother and siblings were abandoned at age 9? Would he have gotten free when he was turned into a slave? Would he have applied the hardships of his youth to rule fairly over his conquered lands? Probably not.
Genghis is by far the more intelligent and cunning conqueror. He had ethics that he stuck to. The video mentions using people as shields? Guess which people? Why, the people who'd betrayed their own. You were fucked if you did something like that, even if it benefited Genghis. You can't even compare him to Alexander. Hell, after he conquered Egypt, he didn't even have the logistics of needing a steady supply of food which made everything he did a thousand times more easy. Alexander conquered a lot, it's true. But he can't compete against Genghis.
dont be mad, but "russia" at the time of genghis was nothing more than a few backwards duchys competing for power, nothing scare for him - china was a great campaign, and the arabian peninsula, but both werent united anymore, china was split up in factions, and the arabian peninsula was split in different countries - some wanted to apeal to genghis from the beginning - and the rest of genghis conquering was easy - he barely touched india or central europe - compare that to alexander who conquered persia and india and much more of the old world, the mayor powers of its time
kurojima Oh, I'm not mad. LOL. Why does not agreeing equal being mad? I just don't agree with you.
Pound for pound, Genghis Khan was simply a thousand times more impressive than Alexander. You can quibble about him not conquering Persia and down play his accomplishments because of that but it doesn't change the fact. Alexander was raised to lead. He had Ancient Greece behind him. Genghis had nothing, was less then nothing, and still conquered twice as much as Alexander. He didn't even have so much as a tribe when he started out, much less a giant war machine line Ancient Greece. =P
Well, at least he has successfully finished his khanquests.
Notchcrafter 1 who?
2.where is slenderman?
Mathor Sionur Me. I am Slenderman. Don't you look at my name?
Dat pun do
But Genghis Khan was still as badass as khan solo.
Slender Man Sr. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh
This is a really great series! We frequently use them in our classes, our students love it. Congratulations, TED-Ed
Anytime there is writing about civilizations being "barbaric", you should take it with a grain of salt as they are most likely written by enemies such as how the Vikings are portrayed
exactly the indians did the same thing with the british
@@taz0492 eh, you alright mate?
@@Shivam-il2om I could be wrong here but during school in England we were taught about our colonisation that the indains tried to take some sort of englightened high ground by calling us barbarians and savages.the school system weren't bais they did teach us the about bad things we did but this was before we had taken control of india. I was simply stating what I had been taught
Thank you! You are so right
Everyones calling him a Monster and I'm just sitting here like " it was the 13th Century"
Yes, it was a century in which magnificent cathedrals and mosques were being built, universities were being founded, astonishingly accurate sea-charts were being made of the Mediterranean area (and the new maritime powers which were reducing piracy), the use of Indian powers-of-ten numerals was being spread throughout the world by Muslim traders, etc. etc.
PastPresented
And a period of very brutal warfare everywhere.
Steven Choza
A lot of the really brutal, culturally harmful stuff, was in the past for western Europe, and there was pretty good progress until the Black Death arrived in the 14th century (probably with the help of the Mongols).
Wester Europe not Asia.
*****
The ASIAN steppes...
Why can't he be both, conqueror and unifier? Weren't Rome's leaders conquerors and unifiers? We remember their legacies neutrally or even kindly, so why not the Mongol's?
Perhaps because the Romans (and the Chinese, whose ancient empire still exists, and is now thought of as a nation) brought clear cultural benefits with their conquests, whereas the Mongols really brought very little that hadn't been present before they arrived (for example, the Silk Road has existed for thousands of years).
Leaving aside the toll in human lives, the Mongols did have some lasting impacts in the areas they conquered. In truth the Mongols did not contribute much new to science, technology or artwork directly, but they were good at spreading things around. When the Mongols went to Iran, they brought with them rice from China. They also sent cobalt east to Chinese potters for use in their ceramics industry as blue paint. Mongolians built roads and established trade posts on the conquered territories, and were responsible for creating the first reliable mail network, that spanned from Kiev to Peking. Additionally, they are credited with the first cannons - combining European bell-casting techniques with Chinese gunpowder.
david boell
Rats were good at spreading plague around. Empires tend to need good mail networks, such as the Roman "Cursus Publicus" and its earlier Persian equivalent- and mail networks function better if there are roads and wayside halts, as again famously provided by the Roman Empire, which would probably have lasted somewhat longer if there hadn't been so many mounted invaders coming west out of the plains of Asia (the Mongols being just the culmination of many).
PastPresented
But the Mongols did have a good mail network in the Yam system.
Steven Choza
Yes, as mentioned by david boell in the post to which I was responding.
"You can't just put a mass murderer on your currency."
Me, a mongolian: *laughs*
We English have Winston Churchill on our pound notes, the Americans have George Washington on their dollars, etc, etc.
I really like that they add some character and personality to the two debaters and especially the judge (I laughed so hard when he screams). This series is awesome too, viewing controversial history figures in a different perspective. They give us both good and dark sides of these people and show how complex history, as well as human, is.
They say history is written by the victors. Alexander is titled Alexander the GREAT while Gengis Khan is portrayed as barbaric conquerer though they both did the same thing. The difference is that Greeks were advanced in literature and wrote great stories about their king wheras Mongols lagged behind in literature. All the stories we read about Gengis Khan were written by Chinese writers who were the enemies of mongols and sadly enemies don't write good things about each other. The fact is that every conqueror in the history of mankind had done barbaric acts and killed enemies.
Uzumaki Narutoo, doesn't make it right though. We shouldn't be glorifying people like Alexander or Genghis. They were tyrants.
Uzumaki Narutoo the reason he isn't called Genghis Khan the Great basically only Europeans use names like the Conqueror and the great.
But Daenerys is different.
Every nation's leader is a tyrant in a time of war, and in the context of the Genghis Khan, he united a nation of warring tribes oppressed by a powerful nation.
Just like Ying Yang, every good has it's bad and viceversa. It's the same thing here
In other words Khan was no different from many empires around him for his time. The only difference is that he did it better.
He brought as much success as he brought suffering.
absurd potato but people need to understand his intentions were not to slaughter ruin people’s lifes kill them for no reason he always gave the option to surrender
He still was a bit more violent, and moreover his empire quickly fell after his death, like Alexander the Great's
Giorgianni Cartamancini name a single man who had a great empire that wasnt violent?
Giorgianni Cartamancini and the only reason his empire fell after he died was only because of his greedy grandsons who fighted over land and power between each other not his fault at all!!
@@piercebataa3250 All were of course, but not all are reported to use such extreme violence so often
Ghost of Tsushima made me want to brush up on Ghengis Khan
😅😅
Zailku bol haraay shuu
@@sarangerelbnbatbaatarbn5115 hahaha tiim ee
@@icescorpion7050 😂😂😂
2:57 HIS FACE IM DYING 💀💀💀🤣🤣🤣
I read a little biography. And it stated that if one of his troops had a family, and if he died, Genghis or his troops would give the loot to the family.
Witted Acrobat19 Most of nations in the past used to do it.
That is true if the soldier has killed a general or high ranking officer in that time he would get more loot because he did well
His family was almost killed after his father died, so he knew firsthand how it impacted the widows and children. I always loved that part of his reforms.
Witted Acrobat19 Wow
@@SunflowerSpotlight yep
he used biological weapons lol
NichoTBE Yup. He kinda did.
1995yuda Actually that was his kid that reportedly used bio weapons, and they had no concept that the bodies would infect people either. They threw the bodies over the wall to instill fear, panic, and to annoy the city into opening its doors to end the siege.
Mike Parry No offence but I'd take my chances with TED's info...I mean,they are a good,reliable source. But you make sense for whatever that's worth.
NichoTBE Biological weapons were used throughout history. People in any time period tended to use any method they knew. It's no coincidence that they say "anything goes in love and war". For example, poisoning the enemy water supply with dead bodies was a well-known tactic. The part where they said Genghis was no differen than his contemporaries was not an exaggeration.
Milen Semkov Hernan Cortes used that tactic to defeat the Aztecs.
Great video! I'll be using it tomorrow in my 6th grade world history class. We're covering the Silk Road next, so it leads nicely into that, too. Thank you!
Wowza, I love how thought-provoking these TedEd vids are 😃 This 1 inspired an awesome idea for a time-travelling story which I now really want to write 🙏🏼
Can't blame him for being brutal. Imagine growing up with everyone plotting against you, your father killed by hostile tribes, growing up in barren land. Now imagine that you're trying to be nice, then your arch-enemy convinced your allies that you're a threat and then they turned against you, having missionary and embassador murdered, he won't survive without being harsh.
can't imagine how he came up with the idea to invade those territories
yeah, that's an excuse to kill 10% of the world population
Chaktip Paiboon Temujin was not barbarian or evil , the world was , he was just strong , if europe could be strong as him , they would do what he did , and as we all know , they did after 1700's
Karsten Smeesters
if they didn't want to die, they should have surrendered, when change comes you either go with the flow or you fight it and pay the price, the rebelling cities fought and paid the price, like anyone would have done. It was 13th century, conquest was common place...and I don't know why Khan of all the conquers get more hate than others.... Rome, Ottomans, Alexander and others from that era weren't any better, it was just that Khan was way successful than the rest...and others if capable and successful would have done what he did, atleast he wasn't a bitch and was just.
*****
So did other emperors..
If you start invading from east to west you are Genghis Khan the barbarian , If you start invading from west to east you are Alexander the great!!!
+Puglous You actually don't know if Alexander did. There are way less written records from Alexander's time. What is known is that about 35% of the world population lived in that Persian empire, so Alexander could easily have killed about 7%.
Most written records about the mongols are from Muslim or Chinese writers. Most written records about Alexander are from Greek/Macedonian writers. The winner determines the history, as always.
+Puglous Nonsense, you think someone went and counted the number of dead left behind after the Mongols? The numbers were written mostly by those nations (Arabs, Persians, Rus), who hated Mongol invaders, and these figures are too exaggerated.
+Puglous Cuz Alexander was a super gay!
+Nadir Siddique smooth
Nadir Siddique 👏👏👏
PLS CONTINUE THIS SERIES IT IS AWESOME
Wow. We preview/watch numerous videos to accompany history readings at home. This video is the best (under ten minutes) video we have watched. Both my children were able to grasp important details in recall. Unlike some others, I did not feel as though the video was downplaying the brutality of his actions. It also deals with the overall complication of relying on, often biased or limited, historical accounts to draw firm conclusions on complicated figures. Well done.
It's incredible that people compare him to Hitler etc who was born over 700 years later. The whole point of history is to view someone within their context and not with modern day values that did not exist.
+Tabitha Akers Only historians and researchers abide by this... even then some don't. I don't know how our education systems teach these things... but I'd be damned if they were doing it right. They clearly aren't as evidenced by the amount of people on the internet and in this comment sections don't get this. If you want thoughtful and meaningful conversations on History subjects like this you're going to want to be talking to actual historians and researchers through forums like /r/History, /r/AskHistorians, and other places like these.
+Tabitha Akers
No,
actually that's not the "whole point"
That is one USE OF history.
History is simply the documentation of what allegedly transpired; how it transpired.
To say there is a "whole point" is to imply that every historian across time was united under and single motive.
The very fact that you assume some "point" upon the entire activity of [people recording events]...
Indicates that you are projecting your own agendas onto history;
rather than simply objectively analyzing it as simply a record of alleged events.
+Tabitha Akers
as for your point about "values that did not exist"
Values are universal.
If someone ripped your unborn child out of your womb... you and your friends would consider that "cruel" as you likely bled to death... regardless of what age you lived in.
What DOES vary is what is ACCEPTED in society.
a good example is how black people are treated in America.
what is accepted has changed;
but people always knew whipping a man to death was cruel.
In Khan's day... if soldiers came and ripped your unborn son out of your wife's womb... leaving her to die in your arms... you just accepted it.
Actually there's a section in the Advanced Placement History essay where students have to connect historical time periods together based on similar themes between the two time periods. So that seems like they're saying it's pretty important to compare disparate time periods.
Genghis khan-Expansionist foreign policy,hell-bent on world domination
Hitler -Expansionist foreign policy,hell-bent on world domination
See it now?
Do history vs. Winston Churchill and Robert Clive. Mention the barbaric colonialism period in the Indian Subcontinent where the death toll was way beyond WW2.
The death toll in India was not above WW2, even tho it was high.
Galiba Hasin you must be high ww2 have more deaths. But the indian death are still high
Ulimi Ulabi no they saved them
History vs Aurangazeb 😉
*British people did not like that
“He slaughtered thousands.”
“Yeah, but so did other people.”
he killed 40 million, enough that some people claim it actually changed the carbon output of the earth.
Chingiss Khan once said "If you're afraid - don't do it, - if you're doing it - don't be afraid!”💪🏻🇲🇳💪🏻
16 Million descendants!?! He must've
*Khanqured* dat ass if you know what I mean
It's pronounced *Han* though.
Hentai Senpai 😂
best comment 10/10
Is that my comment wtf I don't remember writing it
Hentai Senpai how exactly did they reach the magical 16 million number? did scientists run dna tests on all 6 billion people in the world and check if they had khans dna? and how did they get khans dna sample?
He was born during the time of war. His tribe was constantly at war with other mongol tribes and with China (south east) and Khawarzami empire (south west). He only saw blood and destruction in his childhood. He was disavowed from his own tribe at age of 12 (same year he conquered his tribe back). He united mongol tribes(who were at war for more than 100 years) a task which was thought impossible at that time. He actually avoided bloodshed but couldn't stand disloyalty(which would have triggered another war among mongols). He saw destruction an effective tool to control not only his own people but others too. We should not forget the unforgiving times he lived in. He wasnt the only barbarian but he had power and he had most ruthless people from the sands of Gobi behind him so yes history only remembers him
Fatherless people back then: becomes the greatest conqueror in history
Fatherless people now: harasses random people on Twitter for having an opinion
Hey bro, thanks for this! I'm in a Italian school, my professor told me that i should watch a story video, and it was this video! thanks for the help!!
Every empire in the history of forever was brutal. The Roman empire, possibly the most progressive of empires was extremely brutal. Todays moral standards dont apply to those times.
*Persian Empire coughts*
40 million is most possibly wrong.
Vinicius Domenighi they spread their killing through centuries, they might not have killed 40 million in a few decades but you can be sure they killed the equivalent of that in the 1500 years that they existed.
Franco Centola, and? So then how many people would have been killed if the Khans ruled for 1500 years? Time frames matter. I can drink 10 bottles of vodka throughout the year and think nothing of it, but if I drank that in a single sitting I'd need to go to the hospital. If it only took a few decades for the Khans to kill the same amount of people the Romans did in a Millennia and a half, doesn't that set off a red flag for you? Impressive, but for all the wrong reasons
Exactly, you see how western empires or leaders such as the Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire are now days glorified where Ghenghis Khan is considered a barbarian. When in truth, the Roman Empire committed atrocities in the same magnitude as the mongols, or probably even worse but hey we only talk about the good things the Romans did while we talk about the barbaric acts the Mongols committed.
"I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you".
Genghis Khan
Damn was he brutal
LukeCageforhire statement to the king of China
No mongols had believed in gods at that time...
there is a website like that
Blood and bone
I really love watching your vids at 3:00am in the morning :-)
If only debates were this calming
Genghis Khan was like Thanos then? Honorable intentions, deplorable actions
Hahaha maybe u are thanos mofaa he is more smart and honest better ur imagination dude
He was good man. For mongolia ge was like our god father. He was our hero not thanos
Not even. Maybe if Thanos was one of hundreds of conquerors and actually succeeded then was painted as a villain while others were painted as gods.wait... Actually not that far off lol.....
Your drunk father is like Thanos but not him
He is not Thanos. He did not enjoy killing he wanted to make countries surrender first. He also made warring countries come together under one rule.
In present day mongolia he is looked upon as a god
Tim Gantumur good.
Well, Mongolia hasn't produced many great leaders or artists. So you got to make do with whatever you got.
abhishek kumar >Mongolia hasn't produced any great leaders.
So the guy who created the world's largest empire to date is not a good leader?
Outlaw King
You really know the difference between "any" and "many", don't you?
And Khan was never able to built to an empire. His own sons and grandsons condemned his actions and called him a savage hoard.
abhishek kumar yeah and his empire didnt last long, it was divided.....
I really like these history vs ..... videos they are pretty balanced . Really nice👍👏
you've taught me so much TED -Ed
😁
“So who’s the defendant today?”
“...”
“KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNN!”
Selmon bhai
2020 khans chutiya khans fake khans
Lol
I wish John Green was here.
hahahaha fr
Crash Course
KY2 AQW " *we're the exception* "
john green is just little girl to him you ont know Chingis Khaan
Please bring these back...
I’m officially addicted to this series
Same here
3:33 That was the first biological war in history.
Crazy Smile 7 but a curious fact about that is that no one knows if it had that intend as they didn’t fully understand the plague back then for us it may now look like obvious that it will spread but remember back then people thought it was a punishment of god to the sinners or a superior entity wrath so there is some revisionism that propose it was just for lowering morale in the city and disrupting the routines of the people
Not the first. poisoning wells and shooting rotten corpses across city walls was a popular war tactic in ancient times also.
*WORLD WAR Z: Prehistoric Time*
Christian Silva 9
Nah... It was the first troll move in history
Call him whatever you want to, but he was the baddest of motherfuckers ever born. Respect Temujin!
Mine too Omar, mine too.
I have Persian, Arab & Indian ancestry.
+Ahsan lol dude you're more complicated than a average girl
Mukesh Kanna We was Kings n shit.
How about Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, George Washington (who was a slave owner)? Do they deserve reverence when they all pretty much did some horrendous things that today's society wouldn't tolerate.
+χρονης κ. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
This video proves that Genghis Khan was a very kind, polite, and moral man who just wanted to unify the world in peace and create a great postal system.
It's a shame there aren't a lot of these... I really like them.
Maybe this channel has the best content in youtube?
more likely
Search up "In A Nutshell" please!!!
KADRİ SEMİH GÜLER watch 101 india channel
TheLio666 in a nutshell mostly talking about posibilities and when he talks about the happened things, he explains it as he thinks. example; he said gmo is not harmful for food. but it harms more than it repairs.
founding the true history and correcting the majority is far more harder than talking about relevant things
walter white Yo Mr.White i thought you were dead.Where u at nowadays??
Funny how some hipsters try to measure 13 century with modern time moral standard. Can any of you bring ancient empire without bloody history? Ghengis is praised not because he killed millions but simply he was greatest military genius. Nobody has conquered biggest empire like him in short time not even Alexander.
👍👍👍
+Bru Tonin There were 70 cities named after Alexander the Great. The Mongols conquered all of them.
+Bru Tonin hipsters?
+Bru Tonin 'Hipsters' what does that even mean lol. Hes not shitty just because he was a conquerer who killed people, he SLAUGHTERED a ridiculous amount of people and the Mongols including Genghis himself raped MILLIONS of women across the old world. You can argue about how he was the Greatest General of all time and how he brought change in the world but you make a whole video painting him as a saint.
+Swang ToTheLeft well if ur saying rape, most women were spared unless they tried to commit a crime or went against law and besides Mongolian woman had it way better than most women during those times, and there are many female soldiers and generals that lead the army to victory and viewed as people, and slaughter of chineses people were because they have harassed the Mongol clans for generations and also poisoned his father and brought disharmony between the clans, he's not a saint but he's also not as brutal as you say
Amei vídeo, conhecia por cima a história do Khan, mas resolvi pesquisar mais por conta do jogo Ghost of Tsushima 💕
I love this series, it actually gives controversial figures a fair chance at showing their good side
Okay then how many did European empires killed during colonial period in Asia and Africa
Joseph Augustine but everyone knows they were bad
lmao, its a lot more than 40 million. Chinggis wasn't all that bad, being conquered by his empire probably wasn't a good experience. But for every city he massacred, several more were taken without bloodshed because of the fear that that woud happen to them. I'm a little biased since I have relations to a khanate in Afghanistan, but I really don't think hes that bad at all.
notanomnom but was it more than 10% of the population at the time through inhumane methods.
Does it matter though?
far from 1% of total population of the world, compare that to 10% of just 1 empire in that short time.
0:31 "Khaaaaan!!!"
Just over 30s in and this already earned my thumbs up :)
JHD42, Maybe its just me, but I cringed pretty hard at that part
Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
*_KHAAAaaaaAaan_*
1:45 the original' I like ya cut G"
I love this format
Came from Extra History. Cool to see a different perspective.
Im also from Extra Credits!
Me too!!
ZagboyGamez about the same
Same!
me too
Honor: order order, now who’s the defendant today?
*looks at portrait of khan*
Honor: KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN
Im dead
Thats what chinese said
I understood that reference.
_(for those genuinely who don't know, it's from Star Trek)_
@@danielawesome36 I understood it too
Wish it could be more longer
I see what you did there in the beginning with Khan-quest
History vs Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of the Qin Dynasty, and first Emperor of China. Was he a brutal and tyrannical monster who practically enslaved his own people? Or was he the Founding Father of China for whom without, there would be no China?(Forgive me if I misused grammar)
Legend has it that his people had to give 66.666666666666666666666666℅ of what they earned to him as tax.
godzillavkk .
godzillavkk I
DamnStupidOldIdiot lol
godzillavkk Qin Shi Huang was not a complete unifier, nor the founder of China, since it was only named after him in his command. It was the Shang who did it first before the feudal states period before he rose up to power.
that face though when the judge said "Khan!"...
I know right?
Genghis really did have a Anime backstory
Definitely
I think some anime character really base on him.
If he killed everyone in his way and left no survivors then how would he grow his empire let alone hold on to land
It's easier to control a smaller population. That was a tactic. They'd kill 9/10 of the population of an area. No need to worry about rebellion for a while.
@@rob5541 no they didn't That's falsified history.
Under genghis khan , mongols mostly killed innocents in beijing and even then he took a lot of chinese engineers with him , that's how he defeated khwarazam
He didn't have any rebellions because his empire was very secular & tolerant & the laws were strict
It was said that an old women could keep gold coins on her head and travel from china to persia and the coins on her head would be intact.
He did not kill every one! They would often surrender!
0:32 KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAKAHDKWHAOXHWKABXOW BEST SCENE
Wonder if that's a Star Trek 2 reference🤔
Finally!! Someone got the pronunciation of his name right ^^"
+lps WildFlower yes cuz i get so annoyed when they always say genghis khan its like me saying garry potter
+minusnuffink nah, it's 'Khan'
+Saiko Yonebayashi but you pronounce it 'han'
+Saiko Yonebayashi actually its Khaan
In Mongolia our h is x so xaan is the same as haan which defined as king since Mongolian people don't include a last name
I think that when judging past figures, we should compare them with other figures of that time, rather than nowadays. Morals and ethics have changed a ton, so it isn't really fair to judge those figures with our ethics and morals.
"Order, order. Now who's the defendant today?"
*PTSD WAR FLASHBACKS INTENSIFY*
*A dotharaki horde Ned in an open field*
romarssi everything!! I get your Bobby B reference
Lmao was waiting for this
Remember kids: Unprecedented genocide is ok if you can improve trade and postal relations!
No it is not, that's only OK if it is revenge.
DamnStupidOldIdiot even if it's revenge, it's still NOT ok, believe everything is better if you can jut forgive, i'm talking from experience
I was talking in general, not about Genghis
It’s ok in that time!!
Biggesttrolleu *and racial and religious tensions on top of equal practition of law. And that "genocide" wasn't so unprecidented or genocidal
Well, Chinggis Khaan didn't annihilate an entire country without a reason. First it was his father was poisoned by Tatar aimags. His father told him to avenge his death. Before that Ambaghai khaan was deceived by Tatar aimags and brought to the Jin capital Zhongdu, crucified, and then hacked to death. Therefore he also annihilated Tatar aimags and later invaded the Jin Dynasty. When he wanted to develop silk road and sent 500 merchants to Khwarazm, 500 merchants were considered as spies and imprisoned. So he sent 3 ambassadors. But 1 one of the ambassador was killed and 2 were imprisoned as well. 1 managed to escape.
I love these lawyer debate-style videos
Just in time for ck2 horse lords!
daniel tabin Calvin Klein?
Colin kaepernick?
Crusader Kings
Moises Munoz Marty McFly?
daniel tabin Too many idiots on the comments. CK2 stands for Crusader Kings 2, a Medieval Simulator in the form of a game created and published by Paradox Interactive.
I love this series!
007MrYang they are best part of ted ed.imho.
Yup
Agreed =)
me too :3 thy should make more like a shit ton more i learn a lot from these episodes
+007MrYang I really dislike the framing device. I'd rather he just speak directly to the audience to explain things, similar to how John Green does his show.
1 in every 200 are descendants? That's insane
To paraphrase Machiavelli: "There are moral leaders, and there are efficient leaders"