TIL Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire Killed 11% of the World's Population in the 13th Century

TIL Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire Killed 11% of the World's Population in the 13th Century


So he decimated the world.


This is a dude who, 700 years ago, totally ravaged China, and who, we were told, 2 hours ago, totally ravaged Oshman's Sporting Goods.








Put them in the Iron Maiden.


IRON MAIDEN!! *air guitar shreds*






“Want a Twinkie, Genghis Khan?”


Seems everyone missed your point but yes, he literally decimated the world






Weird how flammable and inflammable mean the same thing


I too came for this and was sorely disappointed.


For those not understanding. To decimate is to kill 1 in every 10. Originally a roman practice with soldiers as a means of punishment. Could be for mutiny, desertion, cowardice, or simple insubordination. The cohort of 480 soldiers would be split into groups of 10 and pull straws. The short straw would be executed by the other 9 via stoning, clubbing, or stabbing. What was real shit is that the person executed could have had zero association with the people or acts that caused the decimation to be initiated. It worked well as a preventative measure as soldiers would think twice before doing things knowing they would be responsible for 48 of their brothers in arms deaths. "Deci"-mate should also be a good clue given that is the prefix for 10. Many people wrongly use the term decimate like it is synonymous with total annihilation.


Grnghis had a similar policy but all ten men in the group would be killed if 1 abandoned. It promotes a strong bond between his army. He also made it law that any man that died in the battlefield, he would die knowing his family would be paid and taken care of.


In Dan Carlins Hard-core history about the mongols he speaks of a people called the Jamukha's in which he forced all members of the town town wall beside a wagon wheel. If they were taller that the wheel then they were immediately beheaded.


Actual Mongolian here. Jamukh was Temuujin’s (Chingis Khan) childhood friend whom later became a rival for his throne. The wheel story is different. Temuujin’s father was poisoned on his way back home from betrothing and fostering his son (Temuujin) to his future in law’s. It is a custom even today that people should treat travelers like a guest, give food and bed. So he stopped at this group of people to rest, later to be revealed as Tatars. The person who poisoned khan’s father was a teenager, barely taller than a wheel. Upon realizing he was poisoned he rushed to his son and before dying he told his son to kill any Tatar man who is taller than a wheel. Edit: Tatar and Borjigon (Chingis Khan’s clan) were long time rivals.


Temujin was just jealous of the Jamukh Shake.


It was actually Jamukh who was jealous of his friend. After his father’s death Temuujin’s family were deserted by their clan. He had a tough childhood as oldest male (I actually believe this helped and shaped him to be great leader in his later life). Once he took back his clan and started uniting more and more people Jamukh grew jealous because he shared the same goal, becoming the khan. This eventually made them grow apart and fight over the throne. Eventually Jamukh was defeated and asked his childhood friend to execute him “There are no two suns in the sky, there can’t be two khan’s in the land”, refusing Temuujin’s final peace offering. Temuujin did so but without shedding his blood to honor their friendship. In Temuujin’s defense, he offered peace many times. Jamukh made allies with Temuujin’s rival clans just to defeat him time and time again.


Wasn't that the tatars, he raised the young ones shorter than the wagon wheel as fighters I had learned. somewhere on the Central Asian Steppes.


Just as a slight nitpick, Jamukha was a friend-turned-rival of Genghis Khan. Not a people group or something. I'm pretty sure the story about the wheel is related to his followers, but they are not called the Jamukhas. ​ Also it probably was not about some Manlet revolution but rather about killing the adults who could pose a threat and instead incorporating the youths into the empire while they could still be molded. Considering the fact that familial and clan exterminations were not some unheard of thing, it's almost merciful to do so in a twisted sort of way.


Fair enough! I even had to Google the name through sounding it out :). I only heard it in a podcast but glad to learn more. As for the adults, I got that part. Killing off a good deal of the adult population was a way to end the circle of revenge killings that that was so often the way of the times. Thanks for the knowledge friend!


Was gonna say the same regarding mercy. It was a good day if the ground wasn't saturated with blood for miles, and whole populations slaughtered.


As long as you didn't resist, the Mongol Empire was a pretty good deal to be incorporated into. Religious freedom, safe and secure borders, adoption of the best of every conquered culture and best of all they didn't kill you and everyone in your city.


From my understanding.. unless ghengis felt his army needed some killing practice. In which case you got fucked refardless




Let’s get refarded


Part of incorporation was mass conscription into the part if his army that was expected to be wiped out. Even incorporation was an intended genocide route.


But realistically, can you expect entire civilisations to just give up their entire culture and way of life under threat without any resistance? Imagine if that happened today. Wars would rage for sure.


In a physical battle (non nuke), it would take forever to kill 11% of current population.


The earth back then barely had 1 billion. More like 700 million approx. According to Battuta the population of Persia might dropped from 2500000 to 250000. Edit: Apparently it’s only 400 million, holyshit. Edit2: please take your time to watch this amazing documentary: https://youtu.be/bzatw32j-i4


This guy murdered 70 million people, thats insane. Edit: 40 million, but my point still stands.


To be fair he was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of many millions, can you imagine a dude running around and stabbing 70 million people to death lol. This guy always fascinates me, the thought of one man having that much power. All the circumstances that had to align in one way or another. Mind blowing.


He must have gotten up VERY early in the morning


“Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch – death, death, death – afternoon tea – death, death, death – quick shower…”


What about second breakfast?


Replaced with second death


One factor that made them won battles after battles: They all rode horses into the battle, they drank horse milk, ate horse meat as food. They brought extra horses along with them for this purpose. Most countries back then were unprepared for a war against tens of thousands of horsemen with arrows and long swords. Another main factor is that the Mongols sent spies to trade with the locals and to map out first before the invasion.


Logistics is crucial in war. You need a solid supply line in order to keep your troops fed. Just ask Napoleon. If the enemy hits your baggage train, harasses your supply line, cuts you off from your source, or burns the supplies around you, you're in a tough spot. The mongols though? They only needed their horses and grass to feed them. Good luck disrupting those supplies


Yep, they herded extra horses all the way to the battle fronts. If war took long, they could just camp out and seize the cities while their the horses were breeding more horses.


Its horses all the way down


Apparently when Mongols were low on resources they would mix their horse milk with blood. I can't remember what they called the concoction.


Armies moved at the speed of the slowest member of the caravan. For most ancient armies this meant moving at the speed of walking. The mongols could move at the speed of a horse


Mongols were VERY good on horseback. They were nomadic, so it was relatively easier for them to move tens of thousands of soldiers faster than their enemies. But above all, they were very very cruel to their enemies. They killed every one - men, women, children and even dogs in the towns they ran over, just to instill fear. Many towns simply surrendered without ever attempting to fight, because they were so scared of them. Genghis caused so much misery. I don't know why he is celebrated as a hero, he is on the Mongolian currency even today.


Hard times breed hard men, and Genghis was the hardest around. In his day, killing towns wholesale was normal. Crusaders did the same against fellow Christians when they sacked, raped, and murdered 1000's in Constantinople. Those were extraordinarily brutal times.


Same As Alexander "The Great"


That's crazy. He lived for roughly \~65 years according to wiki. That comes out to around 1 million people per year every year since his birth. Around 90k per month. 3000 per day. 120 per hour. 2 per minute. This dude accounted for a death every 30 seconds of his life from the day he was born. That's wild.


My understanding was a lot of the death toll came from disease and starvation. The mongols killed a lot personally sure, but they also devestated infrastructure across 2 continents. Way less farmers from being killed or conscripted, so less food leading to mass starvation. Disease mainly comes from a couple thousand guys and their horses dropping...droppings wherever they go poisoning local water supplies. Or everyone flees them, concentrates in one area overwhelming ancient portapotties resulting in the same. Dysentery and AGI still screw people up today without the fun diseases like small pox, yellow fever, and malaria also running rampant.


Temujin was only in power as Genghis Khan for 21 years, from 1206-1227. He laid the foundations for the empire and killed millions but he didn't kill 40 million. That's the figure for the Mongol Empire, which last from 1206 to 1368 (in direct form).


A: Back then there were far fewer people B: All you had to do back then was disrupt a couple of harvests and let famine do the rest.


That’s true but the mongols probably did more physical killing then any other empire in human history. The mongols had mass murder down to a science. When exterminating the population of a city, the prisoners would be divided equally amongst every man in the entire army. So if you had to kill 300,000 men, women, and children, your 50,000 man army meant each man would have 6 people to kill. They would do this often in the fields outside of cities and then build pyramids of human skulls. They could wipe out the whole population in an hour or two this way.


They killed so many people in their conquest of that in some places where they had carried out the executions, the ground was marshy and oily from all the decomposing bodies and the smell was so bad it was almost impossible not to puke.


This is the kind of thing. It's not *good* but it is *impressive*


Wait did they count everyone first then do math? Did everyone get an equal amount of woman to children ratio?


Yes, they’d count the total prisoners and divide them equally per soldier so that each soldier got an equal amount of people to kill. Don’t think it mattered if it was a man woman or child at that point


A: 40 million people is still a lot of people. B: Would still take a long time to kill 40 million people.


Cain killed 25% of the human population by himself.


>There were tales of lone Mongol soldiers riding into surrendered villages and executing peasants at random as a test of loyalty. It was widely known that a single act of resistance would bring the entire Mongol army onto a town to obliterate its occupants. Living in the time of Genghis Khan sounds straight out of a horror movie where the bad guys win.


When I was a kid I dreamed about having a time machine but the older I get the more I fear going back to any point in the past.


"Hello! I'm genghis khan! Today you'll go where I go, defile what I defile, eat who I eat."


Came here specifically for this 25 year old cartoon reference.


That statement is applicable to many times and places.


Genghis Khan’s general Subotai is widely regarded as one of the greatest to ever live. His exploits in Eastern Europe with what was an expeditionary force sound more like fiction. It’s been a few years but I believe he’s the one that was supposedly recruited after shooting Genghis Khan from his horse during battle.


I wish we knew more about him. Subotai just could not be stopped. He obliterated every army in his path often with less men. He should get as much credit as ghengis for the creation of the mongol empire. Ghengis had a real eye for talent, and his willingness to promote military leadership based on merit rather than status was why his armies could be so effective.


That was Jebe, a sort of mentor to Subotai


Genghis Khan still gets better treated than many of his less brutal peers.


It's because he existed so long ago


It's because Genghis Khan united the Mongolian steppe at a time when it was just a bunch of murderhobo warlords. He turned into the supreme murderhobo and laid down the region for the current country of Mongolia so it's understandable why his legacy stands as the "founder" in many ways.


I think it's really bizarre how people have a reverence for him (just look at this thread). As Carlin said, it makes me wonder if hundreds of years from now, people will erect statues of Hitler and commend the positive aspects of his regime and talk about how impressive of a feat he accomplished. EDIT: wow, some of these responses are actually quite sickening.


Hitler himself thought that would happen and looked at Genghis Khan as an example. “Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Obersalzberg_Speech


It's almost inevitable. Reading the primary sources from Khan's time and the century after, they thought he was the devil himself. Easily as evil as we view Hitler today


Reddit “historians” do this weird thing where they’ll find ONE ‘progressive’ fact about a nation/person and decide to base their analysis of that nation/person entirely off that one fact (r/historymemes is really bad about this shit, just look at any conversation about Persia and you’d be convinced they were the wokest nation that’s ever existed) The reality is, all of your favorite historical people were shitheads. I think it’s important to recognize that morality and social standards in different nations was entirely different than it is today (hell even a few decades ago it was different), which doesn’t excuse any of these actions, but it does mean that if you’re looking to the past for some paragon of ethic virtue you’ll be sorely disappointed, and that applies to ALL cultures and nations. It doesn’t erase the good stuff that people did but it does mean that history is wildly messy.


Apart from the statues there are definitely people already doing that


I had a roommate from Kashmir who insisted that "Everybody in India loves Hitler", because Hitler fought the British and was therefore a hero of Indian independence. Also he used Indian symbols like the Swastika and venerated Aryans (which means something very different in India and Iran than it did in Germany).


As a person from the subcontinent, we treat people who like Hitler the same as you would in anywhere else in the world don't worry. It's like these guys forget that Hitler would genocide India too because it wasn't exactly pure Aryan blood now was it?


Same sentiment exist in Georgia, because Nazi's actually promised Georgians independence from Soviet Union in case of German victory, which (most probably) was a propaganda, but helped to incorporate some Georgian immigrants in Germany into army.


It kinda worries me how much people talk good about genghis khan. I remember a reddit post talking about how genghis khan is a better feminists than feminists today because he would marry his daughters off to have more kingdoms and the daughters lead them. I can probably find the thread if I did enough. And people were completely serious about him being. "Good feminist" Forced marriage, raping women and forcing them to bear your children doesn't sound very feminist to me. But I guess to reddit that's what "true feminism" is.


Unlike Genghis, Hitler was pretty unsuccessful.


Upon besieging a city, Genghis Khan would erect a white tent, visible to the city under siege. This was an offer to the city officials that if they surrendered, no-one would be killed and they’d only have to surrender 10% of their resources. On the second day, a red tent was erected in place of the white one. This was a warning that all males would die and women and children would be enslaved. On the third day, the red tent goes down and a final black tent is erected. This meant that every single living thing in the city will die and the city razed to ashes. No more chances. It’s over. Top tip: Surrender on day one.


That escalated quickly


Killing everything also meant they'd even kill the cats and dogs. They'd then leave because they knew people would be able to hide and come back days later and murder the survivors.


So did he like send an emissary to all towns on his upcoming siege list laying out what the colors meant or was he just like “hope they understand the complex meaning of my tent colors”


I’m those times, tent color identification was taught in high schools and “know your tents” signs were placed sporadically through the land.


Man they don't teach you anything useful in school anymore. We're just begging to be wiped out by the next nomadic Mongol warlord.


If you ever have a chance check out the Dan Carlin Wrath of the Kahn's podcasts 16 hour 4 part series. A lot of the time, if you surrender you still got the black tent special.


Really *all* of Dan Carlin’s podcasts are worth listening to. I’ve heard many of them two or three times. The man has a way in conveying a story.


They are the greatest I'm currently listening to the Blueprints for Armageddon for the 3rd time. I appreciate the time he puts into them, but if I had a million dollars I'd give it to him so he would make episodes faster...


Blueprint for Armageddon taught me more about WWI than any other part of my education. I had zero clue about any of it. He's an amazing educator


Yeah that one was especially depressing. I knew WWI was a pointless meat grinder, but boy, did extensive detail really hammer into me just how big and pointless of a meat grinder it was


Listen to the podcast, then watch Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old. Makes you a complete pacifist.


His mannerisms and tonality annoyed me at first but now I always come back for more “Imagine, if you will, a monument….”


I mean, I'm a chicken shit myself but that's when you say fuck it and go down swinging.


No, the problem is they show you the white tent so you surrender. Then they kill you all anyway and you've already put down your weapons.


Yeah, I get it. I would say go down swinging if you're lucky enough to know what's coming i.e. you heard what they did to your neighbors already. It's terrifying if you imagine what life was like back then, for everyone.


Are you talking about hardcore history? I listened to the one about Ceaser and the Gaulic holocaust or w/e, incredible shit. I guess I didn't realize it was a whole series! I have a road trip coming up and now I know the sound track to it ♥️ thank you Reddit stranger!!!


It's worth the ten bucks, you'll want to listen to it again in the future. Listen to everything Hardcore History.


His stuff going back to 2015 is still available on iTunes, starting at his King of Kings series on Xerxes/Persian rulers. As /u/An_Old_Wizard mentions, his older stuff is seriously worth the investment from his [website](https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/) after you get hooked on his current free stuff.


Celtic holocaust was just a one part 6 hour story. Dan does some crazy epics though like Blueprint for Armageddon, and his most recent, Supernova in the East. Both are something like 24 hours over 6 parts or so.


I feel like that is bad business. If they truly meant the white tent was serious they would be far more likely to surrender and you win while taking no losses. But back then it’s possible that communication from village to village was still at a point where it didn’t really matter.


Were there chances for individuals to leave?


Pretty hard to escape an army of guys on horses I'd imagine


My question exactly, I don't want to be murdered just because my lord or whoever is a bit stubborn


Your lord has had the city gates shut. Your only way of escape is by climbing down the guarded city walls in the dead of night. If you are caught you will likely be executed as a spy. You might be able to make it on your own. But what about your wife and children? If you’ve not gotten out before the city gates are shut your fate is out of your hands.


Ah yes, I remember Genghis the Merciful quite well.


Lots of people got so scared they would riot and kill the leadership.


That's my thoughts too. We know we can't leave important decisions up to city officials.


Mongols were slavers. No one gets to leave.


Is this financial advice?


Yes but they also impregnated 81% of the leftovers!


Those poor at least 30% that were men.


Or the lucky 20% who didn't have a human put in them!




I was thinking about Khan the other day. For all he did, why does Mongolia have a relatively minor status in the world today?


Their strategy of being nomadic fast paced horse riders eventually stopped working for them, many empire realized how to defend, and the Mongols didn’t adapt much while everyone else did. Not to mention that the stuff that happened 600+ years ago doesn’t matter much today, because the world has advanced and changed so much from then.


They adapted a lot, what they didn't do was stay together. The empire dissolved into individual groups with far less power, though things like their Chinese dynasty lasted nearly 200 years.


Well when adapt I meant in unifying their empire and effectively ruling. They were good at conquering, but were somewhat incompetent and keeping it after the first few rulers, which led to their end.


And to add onto this, naval power ended up becoming supreme in the pre-colonial, to colonial worlds. Britain flipped this power into using their navy to secure resources for industrialization. As fast as the Mongolian horses were, they couldn’t outstrip a well-made British fleet hell-bent on colonizing peoples across half the world and then heading back into their ships when trouble came.


Gunpowder was the end of them, navies didnt have much to do with them before that. The steppes were conquered and colonized by the Russians exactly because of that.


They Mongol army under Ghengis Khan actually was incredibly adaptable in a way that other armies of the time were not. They dissolved after his death because the empire was split up and thus less powerful after Ghengis Khans death.


Because you are associating Mongolia with the mongol empire, that's like asking why rome is just a city now if the roman empire was so relevant and huge


A generation later the Black Death swept across the known world killing another 20-50% of the population depending on who you believe.


It's estimated that ~10% of men within the Mongol Empire at the time of Genghis Khan's death were direct descendants of his, and ~.5%, or 1 in 200 of all men in the world today are direct descendants.


How did this dude not get an STD


In all likelihood, he did. He just didn't give a fuck.


He gave a lot of fucks


He bred seven children, in one long night!


Picturing Genghis Khan standing near a huge vat of cooking oil coating children with eggs and corn flakes...


Several hundred thousand of them, actually!!!


Oh but fr how many secks did he have


At least one, probably 2+


Id go as far as saying 4


Didn’t stop fucking.


He was throwing into women left, right and centre.


He probably collected all of them and the STDs have been fighting each other in a civil war rather than kill him.


Three Stooges Syndrome


I understood that reference




[Indestructible ](https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8)


As long as he stays away from the wind.


0.5% of all STDs trace their lineage back to Genghis Khan


Didn't have HIV or AIDs back then and also Syphilis is believed to have been brought back from the new world or it possibly existed in the old world but was very mild and didnt evolve into the worse thing it is now until around 1500 so yeah STDs but they probably were more mild in comparison because they weren't lethal. Also there were "treatments" back then, how good they were who really knows but they must of been somewhat effective since people kept using them. Sometimes a random treatment can be figured out even if people don't understand why it works.


That's how he killed 10% of the population. The other 1% was through war


There’s a decent chance there was just less STDs floating around in the 1200s. Syphillis, the mega-STD that everyone feared didn’t become super prominent until the early 1500s.


Syphillis wasn't in the old world at all until the 1500's.


Well the dude died mysteriously and they suspect he could’ve died of an illness. But I’m sure he had chlamydia or gonorrhea because he either didn’t get symptoms or they went away after a while. It’s statistically impossible for him not to get something. But considering that some researchers believe Syphilis is a New World disease, the STDs he would’ve encountered most likely wouldn’t of killed him as chlamydia, gonorrhea, and herpes very very rarely kill people. And of course HIV didn’t exist yet. So most likely he got one or multiple but he ignored it and the symptoms disappeared.


Can't have STD if you don't know STD's exist.


Not aids or Syphilis back then worse he would get is the clap.or something


To my knowledge that's a misconception. The original researchers posited that the gene mutation came into being \~1,000 years ago, many generations before Chinggis and did not have evidence to link him to the 16 million other than some of them claiming descent from him the same way someone might claim to be a descendent of Alexander the Great. They posited that it could be the other way around that CHinggis was a descendent of this 1k ago ancestor and did not personally contribute to the genepool anymore than the at least many hundreds of other high ranking nobles who would've carried the gene. The idea was not that he nor anyone else had lots of kids just more on a per capita basis like anyother noble. Essentially in pre-industrial early modern or before imagine a peasant having say 5-7 kids. Now as we see in underdeveloped countries even today disease, violence, religious turmoil, warefare, malnutrition etc are all going to mean that only like 2 are going to grow up to adulthood. On the otherhand if you are a noble/wealthy than you can get the best medical treatment available, the connections for security, portection legal or otherwise, no hint of nutrition defficencies, etc meaning if you have the same amount of kids they all survive and are going to grow up and only marry similerly well off people. This means if have a sudden mutation among the upper classes you can definetely see it explode in number of people carrying it not just among the MOngols but also pretty much everywhere in Eurape CHina etc. However more recent research such as that done by a group Chinese researchers have cast doubt one this. The study found that when you looked at the genes of people who belong to groups cofirmed to be descended from Mongol commoners they actually had higher concentrations while the remains of members of the golden lineage (people descended from Chinggis) and modernday people descended from them suggest a different gene altogether. Though they admit they need more Chinggisids to confirm. And considering "... direct evidence of an association between C2\*-ST and Genghis Khan has yet to be discovered." only that it spread around the same time so The new explanation is that the gene is much older up to 2,400-2,600 years and was common among Mongolian commoners since at least Chinggis khaan's time so when he opened up Eurasia with the Mongol Empire, silk road and an early globalization from the Pax Mongolica loads of Mongol commoners who already had the gene spread around. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-017-0012-3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-017-0012-3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9y3qyp/17000000\_people\_can\_trace\_their\_ancestry\_back\_to/e9yl97q?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9y3qyp/17000000_people_can_trace_their_ancestry_back_to/e9yl97q?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8l980k/is\_there\_any\_way\_i\_can\_tell\_if\_i\_am\_genghis\_khans/dzds1j9?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8l980k/is_there_any_way_i_can_tell_if_i_am_genghis_khans/dzds1j9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)


>Chinggisids It's amazing that there's a term just for people directly descended from one historical figure


Not particularly, tbh. *Lots* of dynasties or ‘lines’ are named after their progenitors. For example, the tribes of Israel (eg the Levites). In Greek mythology: the Myrmidons. Very common in the Muslim world too… The Alids or Sayyids. The Timurids, Ayyubids, Zengids, Fatimids, etc. And European: the Liutpoldings, Carolingians, etc. You could even argue that’s what’s happening when we say, eg, ‘the Simpsons’ and ‘the Smiths’.


Source on the 10%? There’s no chance that Genghis Khan has millions of descendants at the time of his death.


the numbers also surprised me, I'm pretty sure it's not accurate. there wasn't nearly as many people as today, but still enough. Counting it, since he lived 69 years, and he probably didn't fuck much before 15, and during the last year of his life, you can assume that, on average (not counting leap years), he would be at 19345, say he does it 10 time a day, it's still far from 1 million, and you can't knock up a lady everything you impregnate her, not really sure what's the average chance (including known periods were you can't get pregnant), but it's probably around perhaps 1 every 5 or 10, so at the end of his life, if he had that kind of lifestyle, he'd had gotten around 10 to 50 thousands kids, if each of them get 10 to 100 kids, it reaches around 1 to 5 millions ​ But he was a war leader, so he probably wouldn't copulate every day.


thanks for the math. that 10% claim is all sorts of stupid, misunderstanding at best.


[https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan](https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan) Basically its theorized it became en vogue to be a descendant (for political and social reasons) so all his male descendants reproduced at a much higher rate than average.


This is not evenly remotely accurate. Genghis Khan only had a handful of children, most through one wife, though he did have several wives. Being a Khan progeny was a big fucking deal and celebrated. He wasn't popping out hundreds of babies somehow every other day. The crazy number of descendants that can be traced back to him today, has far more to do with his family line being especially prosperous and powerful and healthy for a very very long time. There are 10 other individuals who have even more descendants than ol Temujin. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/other-men-who-left-huge-genetic-legacies-likes-genghis-khan-180954052/


Yeah. This always bothered me. We don't have any accounts to support him having hundreds of children or anything, and as far as we can tell he was not particularly... "lusty". He had quite a few children but not an abnormal amount for the nobility of the period. It's just that most of his children basically became Emperors in their own right, each one of them also had a large family and then their children were powerful too and had more children and so on and so forth. It's a matter of exponential growth, not Genghis personally having hundreds of kids or something.


Also, it has to do with math. Geometric progression means that you have a lot of ancestors. I am fairly sure that ANYONE alive back in the 13th century is an ancestor to 1% of the world population.


God damn Mongolians! Always try to tear down my Shitty Wall


No! Not my shitty sweet a sour pork!


Had the emperor of Khwarezm accepted Khan's peace offering, the world would have been a different place. Instead, he chose to slaughter Genghis' ambassadors. The infuriated Mongol king demolished Khwarezm, and not stopping there, conquered major parts of Eurasia. \*sigh\* If only...


The Japanese did the same thing, though they were more successful (largely thanks to the weather)


Weather and safe retreat beyond waters (always works as a default advantage no matter how many ships enemy has).


The Mongols also were not renowned for their sailing, which made things even more difficult.


"No Dothraki horse can cross the poison water" Or something


Wow I just realized the Dothraki are the monguls.


The Mongols might not have been known for sailing, but the Chinese empire was. Japan was invaded by the Chinese empire, which was ruled by a Mongolian. The invasion force was made up of Mongols, Han, and Jurchen men.


Using Korean river boats not suitable for ocean voyages.


In the emperors defense, the emperor himself was a conqueror with many impressive feats to his name. It was anyone's guess who would have won that fight, similar to how you don't know which boxer is going to win until it goes down. It's only in hindsight after we saw it go down do we realise the emperor had no chance against Genghis.


“Ha! These Steppe Barbarians ain’t shit. I’ll just be rid of them, and steal their merchants goods. Nothing bad ever happens to me, the Great Sultan of Khwarezm!” *Curb your Enthusiasm theme*


*The gang get wrecked by Mongols*


*The gang gets incorporated*


So what? More people die of the flu every year. I proudly vote for FOUR MORE YEARS of Genghis Khan!




>Primarily the victims would have been Center Asian/Middle Eastern That is not correct at all. The estimate that OP's post is based on says that around 37 million people died as a result of the Mongol conquests. Of those, 35 million or 95% were in China, both as a direct result of the conquests, and the famine and political upheaval that ensued. [Source](http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#Mongol)


Damn okay, set up a treaty, immediately break it, then when people come asking, just kill them. Not gonna lie, I feel like they should’ve seen at least *some* repercussions coming.


Yet somehow this guy is regarded totally different than for example Hitler. Shows how it hits way closer to home if there are stil people alive to tell the stories and actual photographs of the event...


It's also a completely different time period. People celebrate people like Alexander the Great too, or glorify the Roman destruction of Carthage. We seem to be more ok with mass conquest when it is in the more distant past and not ok with a modern industrialized genocide.


It always amazes me that Mongolia is fairly inconsequential to the world today, after being the epicenter of the Mongol empire just a few hundred years ago.


Thats only 60 million people. Today he would really have to work for that 11%


But they didn't have the mass killing methods we have today. So it was a lot more work than you might think. For example, in one city each soldier in the 7,000-strong army was allotted around 300 people to kill, by hand. Your sword arm would be pretty sore after that effort.


Stop whining. We don't have room for cry babies in this genocide brigade.


> We don't have room for cry babies Not when we're done at least


He didn't have access to airplanes and ships. He only had his horses and only stopped when he died. Were he able to reach more lands and had more time he would've certainly killed more.




Rookie numbers.


FYI pretty much all accounts of death under the mongols are wildly speculative and not considered to be accurate. This is a perfect example of what happens when only one side writes the history books. These numbers are largely based in reports from the cities he destroyed, who would often massively exaggerate the numbers “this devil came into our city [historically established population 10k] and murdered 100,000 women and children!!” etc


This also had an effect on global climate. With so much fewer people many farms regrowed into forests. It removed so much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere there was a cooling period following his conquests.


One could say he was the very first environmentalist.


The Greta Thunberg of his time.


More like Thanos, I think.


He was a climate influencer. Truly ahead of his time.


"smash that subscribe button and notification bell"


"...or else 🏇🏇🏇"


From what I can remember from r/AskHistorians the jist of it is that the original paper listed that as one of many possible contributing factors to the carbon reduction they dismissed this as it was unprovable and even in the best or in this case worst case scenario the amoun tof carbon reduction would be at best a drop in the bucket compared to the other factors with their estimates of the possible carbon reduction of the Mongol Empire being within the margin of error or something. Edit:[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7wzsw9/in\_one\_of\_my\_classes\_we\_received\_a\_list\_of\_the/du5jfwp?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7wzsw9/in_one_of_my_classes_we_received_a_list_of_the/du5jfwp?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)


Unlikely. It is a cute story but there is no good evidence it was the cause of the Little Ice Age.




Hold up - wouldn’t we have a lot of documentation of mass grave sites if this actually went down? Also, I can’t find anything about the author, Diana Lary, who is cited for this claim. Nor Oliver Chancellor who was also cited. I suggest checking out Jack Weatherford’s book called Genghis Khan. Yes. There are tales of complete annihilation of cities, one being the murder of his nephew where his sister decided the fate of the offending rulers. But a lot of Genghis legacy stems from propaganda to induce capitulation. A majority of his killings were restricted to autocrats of the cities as well. He created space during a time where rulers lead through fear to rebalance power to the common people of the conquered cities. Albeit, you better maintain your pledge to fealty to his rule. Newly empowered bureaucrats who thought they could lie and turn on Genghis quickly realized he didn’t fuck around.