Most Badass Leader in History?

Started by GRIMNIR9 pages

This is why Genghis Khan gets my vote

In the early 13th century, the Khwarezmian Dynasty was governed by Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad. Genghis Khan saw the potential advantage in Khwarezmia as a commercial trading partner using the Silk Road, and he initially sent a 500-man caravan to establish official trade ties with the empire. However, Inalchuq, the governor of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, attacked the caravan that came from Mongolia, claiming that the caravan contained spies and therefore was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia. The situation became further complicated because the governor later refused to make repayments for the looting of the caravan and handing over the perpetrators. Genghis Khan then sent again a second group of three ambassadors (two Mongols and a Muslim) to meet the Shah himself instead of the governor Inalchuq. The Shah had all the men shaved and the Muslim beheaded and sent his head back with the two remaining ambassadors. This was seen as an affront and insult to Genghis Khan. Outraged Genghis Khan planned one of his largest invasion campaigns by organizing together around 200,000 soldiers (20 tumens), his most capable generals and some of his sons. He left a commander and number of troops in China, designated his successors to be his family members and likely appointed Ogedei to be his immediate successor and then went out to Khwarezmia.

The Mongol army under Genghis Khan, generals and his sons crossed the Tien Shan mountains by entering the area controlled by the Khwarezmian Empire. After compiling intelligence from many sources Genghis Khan carefully prepared his army, which was divided into three groups. His son Jochi led the first division into the northeast of Khwarezmia. The second division under Jebe marched secretly to the southeast part of Khwarzemia to form, with the first division, a pincer attack on Samarkand. The third division under Genghis Khan and Tolui marched to the northwest and attacked Khwarzemia from that direction.

The Shah's army was split by diverse internal disquisitions and by the Shah's decision to divide his army into small groups concentrated in various cities. This fragmentation was decisive in Khwarezmia's defeats, as it allowed the Mongols, although exhausted from the long journey, to immediately set about defeating small fractions of the Khwarzemi forces instead of facing a unified defense. The Mongol army quickly seized the town of Otrar, relying on superior strategy and tactics. Genghis Khan ordered the wholesale massacre of many of the civilians, enslaved the rest of the population and executed Inalchuq by pouring molten silver into his ears and eyes, as retribution for his actions. Near the end of the battle the Shah fled rather than surrender. Genghis Khan charged Subutai and Jebe with hunting him down, giving them two years and 20,000 men. The Shah died under mysterious circumstances on a small island within his empire.

The Mongols' conquest, even by their own standards, was brutal. After the capital Samarkand fell, the capital was moved to Bukhara by the remaining men, and Genghis Khan dedicated two of his generals and their forces to completely destroying the remnants of the Khwarezmid Empire, including not only royal buildings, but entire towns, populations and even vast swaths of farmland. According to stories, Genghis Khan even went so far as to divert a river through the Khwarezmid emperor's birthplace, erasing it from the map.

The Mongols attacked Samarkand using prisoners as body shields. After several days only a few remaining soldiers, die-hard supporters of the Shah, held out in the citadel. After the fortress fell, Genghis supposedly reneged on his surrender terms and executed every soldier that had taken arms against him at Samarkand. The people of Samarkand were ordered to evacuate and assemble in a plain outside the city, where they were killed and pyramids of severed heads raised as a symbol of victory.[20]

The city of Bukhara was not heavily fortified, with a moat and a single wall, and the citadel typical of Khwarezmi cities. The city leaders opened the gates to the Mongols, though a unit of Turkish defenders held the city's citadel for another twelve days. Survivors from the citadel were executed, artisans and craftsmen were sent back to Mongolia, young men who had not fought were drafted into the Mongolian army and the rest of the population was sent into slavery. As the Mongol soldiers looted the city, a fire broke out, razing most of the city to the ground.[21] Genghis Khan had the city's surviving population assemble in the main mosque of the town, where he declared that he was the flail of God, sent to punish them for their sins.

Meanwhile, the wealthy trading city of Urgench was still in the hands of Khwarezmian forces. The assault on Urgench proved to be the most difficult battle of the Mongol invasion and the city fell only after the defenders put up a stout defense, fighting block for block. Mongolian casualties were higher than normal, due to the unaccustomed difficulty of adapting Mongolian tactics to city fighting.

As usual, the artisans were sent back to Mongolia, young women and children were given to the Mongol soldiers as slaves, and the rest of the population was massacred. The Persian scholar Juvayni states that 50,000 Mongol soldiers were given the task of executing twenty-four Urgench citizens each, which would mean that 1.2 million people were killed. While this is almost certainly an exaggeration, the sacking of Urgench is considered one of the bloodiest massacres in human history.

Vlad Tepes!

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I do not respect leaders

Don´t have to respect them, but you must admit there have been some pretty convincing and bad ass leaders.

After all these people have to con the masses into risking their lives fo some cause.

Jesus Christ. Gotta admit the man was badass for what he did. borderline insane if you ask me. but hey, look at the world now. 2.1 billion Christians in the world (about one third of the total population of the planet). The Father would have been proud

Ugg from prehistoric Kurdistan.... He raped bears unarmed at the end of the last ice age.

Originally posted by chipper7777
Jesus Christ. Gotta admit the man was badass for what he did. borderline insane if you ask me. but hey, look at the world now. 2.1 billion Christians in the world (about one third of the total population of the planet). The Father would have been proud

The founder of the cult of Atheism is/was also a badass leader.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The founder of the cult of Atheism is/was also a badass leader.

Tell me about this 'cult of atheism' *shifty*

The Govnernments

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The founder of the cult of Atheism is/was also a badass leader.

who is he?

Originally posted by chipper7777
who is he?

I dunno.

But whoever he/she was, he sure did a good job of 'spreading' his/her ideologies and 'converting' religious people to atheists.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The founder of the cult of Atheism is/was also a badass leader.

That'd be Man 😛

Originally posted by chipper7777
who is he?

Logic, reason and deduction, three facets of the one same. A trinity of one, if you will.

Not logic, reason nor deduction drive someone to atheism though. It's not within the field of rhetorics and logic to prove, conclude or assume the nonexistence of God.

Common mistake, but it can happen the best of us 😄 Now I'm not saying God exists. I'm just saying that it's fallible to claim that logic, reason or deduction spawn atheism. Since it doesn't.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
Not logic, reason nor deduction drive someone to atheism though. It's not within the field of rhetorics and logic to prove, conclude or assume the nonexistence of God.

Common mistake, but it can happen the best of us 😄 Now I'm not saying God exists. I'm just saying that it's fallible to claim that logic, reason or deduction spawn atheism. Since it doesn't.

Incorrect.

Incorrect. A popular and understandable misconception, but incorrect.

Logic demands that you don't conclude the nonexistence of God, because you can't disprove God. You may be able to disprove a God, or several Gods. In fact you might be able to disprove most known Gods through a critical analytic processing of religious writings.

The greatest distance that'll ever take you though, is disproving a human interpretation of God, an idea. A diffuse idea of God due to poor translation of supposed spiritual experiences.

There's no laws within logic, reason or deduction that aid the premise that God doesn't exist. Logic actually plead the opposite. Few know this because there's logic in trusting science. To the same people, science versus religion is black and white. Therefore, because science is right, religion is wrong. A fallacy among so many others that are popularly used revolving theism versus atheism.

In fact, most arguments on both sides are often fallacies 😛 I get that you might have come to a personal intellectual conclusion that God is unlikely real. That's not through logic though, it's through cognitive bias. Many confuse the two.

You're still wrong, trying to re-word your unsupported statement won't make it less incorrect. Accept it and move on.

You're even using fallacies to deny fallible reasoning 😛

You're awfully light on the details of why I'm incorrect. Would you be so kind as to point out the logical reasoning for why God doesn't exist, please?

It goes without saying that the reasoning is to be without the involvement of cognitive bias or fallacies. This include the answers "it's obvious" and "there's too many".

A single example, or process of logical thinking should do. This because I've studied logic pretty broadly and I'll understand rather rapidly your way of thinking. I'm not one to assume you don't have a valid point, but I am skeptic that it's logic and not cognitive bias ✅

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
Incorrect. A popular and understandable misconception, but incorrect.

Logic demands that you don't conclude the nonexistence of God, because you can't disprove God. You may be able to disprove a God, or several Gods. In fact you might be able to disprove most known Gods through a critical analytic processing of religious writings.

The greatest distance that'll ever take you though, is disproving a human interpretation of God, an idea. A diffuse idea of God due to poor translation of supposed spiritual experiences.

There's no laws within logic, reason or deduction that aid the premise that God doesn't exist. Logic actually plead the opposite. Few know this because there's logic in trusting science. To the same people, science versus religion is black and white. Therefore, because science is right, religion is wrong. A fallacy among so many others that are popularly used revolving theism versus atheism.

In fact, most arguments on both sides are often fallacies 😛 I get that you might have come to a personal intellectual conclusion that God is unlikely real. That's not through logic though, it's through cognitive bias. Many confuse the two.

hum... some definitions of God are inherently unverifiable yes. however, the definitions of God that involve an intelligent entity directly medling with reality are refutable, and easily so for the most part. At least in as much as god then becomes just an unsupported alternative explanation for processes that follow physical laws and causation and this raises the problem that if god is irrelevant to reality, how can it really be called God?

the deist idea of a god that designed physical laws and acted as first cause, but does not interfere with the universe, is more difficult to refute.

Still, this really comes down to bertrands teapot. it cannot be empircally ruled out, but nothing supports its existence.
besides, it is a sound rule of thumb to assume that that which does not manifest itself in any perceivable way does not exist and sugesting otherwise is actually somewhat absurd if one ponders about it.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
You're even using fallacies to deny fallible reasoning 😛

Incorrect.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
You're awfully light on the details of why I'm incorrect. Would you be so kind as to point out the logical reasoning for why God doesn't exist, please?

Strawman.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
It goes without saying that the reasoning is to be without the involvement of cognitive bias or fallacies. This include the answers "it's obvious" and "there's too many".

You're just trying to sound the erudite here; but failing.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
A single example, or process of logical thinking should do. This because I've studied logic pretty broadly and I'll understand rather rapidly your way of thinking. I'm not one to assume you don't have a valid point, but I am skeptic that it's logic and not cognitive bias ✅

You've studied logic broadly? Hahahaaahahhhahaaaahhahahahhaahahahahaaa X a lot more.

Do we really need another "God" argument right now? Aren't there enough of those in the Philosophy and Religion section?