Kievan Rus' was pre-Golden Horde Russia.

http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/mongolimpact2.html

"Politically, affirmed these historians, the conquest interrupted the gradual consolidation of the Russian lands and deepened feudal divisions. The Mongols shattered the grand princely administration in the northeast and weakened the towns, the supporters of centralization. The centralized Muscovite state of the 15th century emerged, not with the aid of the Tatars, but "contrary to their interests and despite their will.""

https://www.iusb.edu/ugr-journal/static/2002/vogel2.php

"The consensus view among historians is that Russia suffered long term economic depression because of the invasion and oppressive taxation, the so-called Tartar Yoke (Ostrowski 108). Pushin argues that the Mongols made Russia "miss" the renaissance (Halperin 122)."

Gengsis

Exactly right as usual goldfinger. The rest of you fail history. And morality to boot.

Militarily, Khan. (his conquests lasted past his death)

Nappy had a huge influence on Europe, but he ultimately lost. Twice.

Therefore Khan

Fiedler, goldfinger you're wrong, and effectively racist to boot. You're viewing Genghis from the occidental timeline; for the Mongol tribes, for whom he was the leader, he was astoundingly successful. Napoleon bankrupted France, got killed a large proportion of their men and subjected the French to occupation and a romantic obsession with Empire and a continuing itch to attack Germany... and we know where that led.

Chumbles - please prove one of my statements wrong.

Oh so that's why Mongolia is such a dominant power these days.

You must be mad. And a bit of a racist.

Need to change the title of this thread from 'greatest people' to 'guy who killed the most people over the biggest area'. Because apparently that's what half this forum thinks greatness is. Three cheers for mass murder etc....

But again, this is the same shit that made Hannibal lose in the first round and I'm pissed off. Losing a battle doesn't make you a lesser leader. Napoleon was almost without a doubt the single greatest military mind in history. I would put him above Hannibal and at the very least on par with Alexander. How can you say Genghis Khan beats Napoleon militarily? And are you not considering the effects of his civil reforms in France and the rest of Europe *at all*? Where are the comparable civil actions in the Mongol empire? Yeah, religious tolerance, so what. The Caliphates already had that.

And why has nobody yet put the sack of Baghdad down as a negative against Genghis Khan? The razing of 90 Chinese cities? How about the extensive depopulation of Persia, southern Russia, northern China and countless other areas they conquered? Or the destruction of entire cultures like the Kievan Rus?

I want to hear positive arguments for Genghis Khan that can make up for the negatives I mentioned, as well as show more depth to his accomplishments other than "He came, he killed, he conquered". Trade and stability were mentioned. Napoleon did something roughly equal with the standardization of weights and measures across Europe, as well as the implementation of similar civil codes. What else?

As many probably seem to ignore is that the Mongols under Temudschin never set foot on Europe. Further: Were it not for the Mongols, Russia's capital would still be Kiev. Because, guess what, Russia existed before the Horde arrived.

Napoleon.

"But again, this is the same shit that made Hannibal lose in the first round and I'm pissed off. Losing a battle doesn't make you a lesser leader." It's also half the reason Hitler lost.

"but he ultimately lost. Twice." You can't blame Napoleon, though. Especially for the first loss. It wasn't Napoleon's fault he couldn't gather resources. If the Russians weren't using a scorched earth strategy, Napoleon could have had a successful venture in Russia. Invading Russia in the winter wouldn't have been a problem if they could have actually used the Russian resources. And as for the other defeat, it took a coalition of France's major enemies, all of them, to come together and beat him.

And finally, when you look at the accomplishments of the Mongol Empire, don't look at the Golden Horde or Ogedei Khan when you want to attribute something to Genghis Khan. Those weren't his accomplishments.

Genghis: 13
Napoleon: 14

As TP said.

@TR: There still wouldn't be a Golden Horde without Khan

There no way you can call military a wash. Napoleon had gunpowder weapons and army that was considered the best in the world, yet he failed to conquer Russia. Khan had a tribe of nomads in bumble fuck nowhere and managed to conquer all of Asia and Europe. Also, aside from France, Napoleon was a horrible leader, regarded as the anti-christ actually, while khan managed to keep the people he conquered safe and Baghdad aside, had a canny ability to draft intellectuals into his camp. Khan wins easily.

"yet he failed to conquer Russia." You sure as hell pay attention to my points.

"Khan had a tribe of nomads in bumble fuck nowhere and managed to conquer all of Asia and Europe." Um, no. Just so much inaccuracy in that statement.

Oh so your point is that if the people he conquered tried to stop him from conquering, he would have won, nice.

I admit to Europe part, meant Russia, what other innacuraccies are there.

"all of Asia" is an extreme exaggeration.

Sorry, he took a bunch of Nomads in bumblefuck nowhere and managed to start an empire that would conquer most of Eurasia. Happy now?

Giving Genghis Khan credit for the size of the Mongol Empire is like giving George Washington credit for the Louisiana Purchase. Giving Genghis credit for the Golden Horde is like giving Washington credit for the existence of the Confederate States of America.

Point still stands that there wouldn't be a Golden Horde without Genghis Khan.