The science of Djengis Khan

I believe romans were doing that way before him.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

I'm not an expert on Djengis Khan, but he probably had lots of testosterone and aggression.

All the sex he was having wasn't causing him to be successful on the battlefield, it's just that all of his testosterone and aggression caused him to have more sex.

Like how rich people are more likely to have an expensive watch/car, but that doesn't mean buying an expensive watch/car will make you richer.

 

According to the paper it is 1 out of 200 men so 16 millions men or about 0.5% in 2003. Most of these being in the territory of genghis at the time of his death so the probability of them being related to you is pretty slim.
The paper seems like a brain fart, without knowing anything at all about genghis own DNA they apparently traced it down to a bunch of his descendant today in central asia since it started to spread about 1000 years ago, however it could just as likely be that many or most Mongols at the time of the Mongol empire could have carried these chromosomes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29358612/

Remember that genghis himself was about 50 years old when he started his conquests, an old man with low libido, just because he had many concubines does not mean he had sex with all of them or did it regularly, think of the ottoman harem, the sultan typically had sex with only very few of them. Most of them were just glorified servant in essence that could be married off later on.

There was also huge political incentive to claim ancestry from genghis, this is useful if you are trying to gain power or are closely related to the ruling dynasty but in most cases it could be very dangerous as well since you have a potential claim on his territory, nobility usually killed off unrecognized sons of former rulers just to be safe and think of the dzungar genocide, this is likely the fate of non-nobility descendants of genghis as their look can be pretty distinctive from the people they ruled over.

Ghenghis was not significantly more aggresive than anyone, most of his conquest were "forced" on him, the only thing is he was absolutely ruthless and practical, he destroyed huge farmlands area not to cause genocide but because their army was entirely dependend on grassland, without it they would just wither and die. He also sacked whole cities but that was common at the time and he did so mainly to spread fear and prevent further rebellions not to destroy culture, ethnicity or religion as has been done before and after him.

The reason they were so good is because of their superior mobility and at the time generalship, notice that after subutai's death they were never able to threaten europe again nor did they make any inroad in egypt.

Having a big size was if anything a disadvantage in a battlefield, historically the best warriors tend to ere on the short side and be stocky rather than big and muscular. This because a bigger guy will have less endurance, end to be slower and present a bigger target. They are only really good in unarmed combat. Look at the most decorated soldier in ww2 for example.

In conflicts like korea or vietnam, small skinny peasant with a mostly vegetarian diets took on those big meat eaters, in the case of korea they fought the biggest coalition in the world to a standstill. The ancients greeks who conquered the achaemenid also were mostly vegetarian and just look at the most powerful animals in the wild, hippo, elephant or rhino, these are not meat eaters and no meat eater would dare to attack them unless they are young/crippled or heavily outnumbered.

 

So which tribe was he talking about? At the time of his death all of Africa was under foreign rule, if some tribe resisted it was only because they were too worthless to bother with. It doesn’t even make sense, if they were unconquerable for reasons other than terrain then they would be the one doing the conquering instead. Those African tribes that were still stuck in the Iron Age when the europeans came would have been easy picking for their Northern neighbor who mainly did not venture there due to the nature of the terrain and climate, it is also why no higher civilization developed there. Them eating meat has little relevancy.

Clearly I said was mostly vegetarian; first you don’t bother to read my reply, then you agree with it and then proceed to explain why they could not have been mostly vegetarian?

I said they were mostly vegetarians because the bulk of alexander’s army was made up of poor citizens mostly from rural background who throughout most of the world at the time rarely ate meat as it was too expensive and the upper class heavily restricted private hunting. Only they ate meat with any sort of regularity. The ancient "persians" on the other hand ate much more meat than the average at the time.

So firstly athletes and warriors are not the same at all. I should have clarified when it come to speed, what I meant is speed as it is relevant to a soldier I should also have said soldiers instead of warriors. As you might know soldiers spend most of their time walking very long distance, even to this day with modern armies being mechanized, modern soldiers are if anything much more burdened than ancients ones and carry a much heavier weight. A big guy might not have any issue carrying his own weight and some heavy equipment but only for short period of time compared to smaller guy which I said tended to be stocky. A guy like Usain bolt might be good for a 100 meter run but put him in anything beyond 1km and he see how he fare. Look at marathon runner for example, they are the ones who have to do similar efforts as soldiers.

Even then in actual combat i believe them to be faster, in ufc you can see the big guys favoring powerful punchs and blocks while the smaller guys tend to rain down faster blows on their opponent and mostly dodge. They also do not run out of steam like them.

And as I saId you only have to look at the most decorated fighter in ww2, if you know anything about roman history you know how they routinely trounced their bigger Celtic and germanic neighbor, the only reason the germans were not conquered was due to the nature of the terrain, the same thing that saved every neighboring empire, from the Iranians, British and africans even though they were bigger on average. They often talked about how they would start off with big outburst of energy but quickly exhaust themselves.

Tall soldiers are still preferred today but only as parade troops, the very best tend to be shorter, take navy seals for example, just to get there you have to do the equivalent of a marathon, most big guys cannot keep up with it and the tall ones will be very athletic rather than big and muscular.

Humans have evolved for exactly this kind of sustained effort, not short outburst like most the predators who put them to dust when it come to speed or in many cases strength, but long distance running/walking/jogging? Humans might just be the best terrestrial animal designed for this purpose, I’d say they can even beat an ostrich. You have some evolutionary biologist telling you that it was the invention of fire that started to make humans smarter and the only reason humans use fire and others apes do not even thought they are perfectly capable of it is that humans lost most of their hair in order to sweat as efficiently as possible, indeed their favorite method of hunting was simply to chase their prey until it died of exhaustion, something guys like bolt or Ortiz would not be able to do due to their weight, or at least not easily. Even in those tribes which you speak of there is no hulk there, only very athletic frames. Big guys also eat too much.

I’d say it is you here that has drunk the koolaid that being plant based is unhealthy, soldiers eating meat during a campaign was a luxury, it might be more common now but around ww2 only Americans could do it, other soldiers throughout history ate food that were intended to last for a long time and it was mainly plant based, Japanese’s soldiers were know to survive for weeks off of maggoty rice, this did not make them any less dangerous. The mongol eating lot of meat do not mean they were any kind of superhuman since they fought entirely from horseback and were poor at melee combat.

Also all that talk about life expectancy is kind of useless when all a high life expectancy mean is just you being very old lying there in some hospital bed all day waiting for death, incapable of doing anything by yourself. You should instead look at the average fitness level in these countries, it is well know that rich nations tend to be very much worse in that aspect, they also consume a lot more meat for all the correlation you might draw from there.

 

What exactly does "assume" mean? To you, I mean. I can look it up in the dictionary, but you're over here living your own truth so hard, I'm not exactly sure what it is.

 

In all seriousness, guys like Khan, Xerxes, Darius, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Stalin, Mussolini, etm., have several things in common. They were extraordinarily charismatic. They were smarter and better educated than their peers. They were from noble, or high birth, they started with more money and social capital than you or I will ever have. They were narcissistic, ambitious sociopaths who had rationalized their murderous intent. It's possible the rules of SR didn't apply to them, but we can be sure they weren't addicted to porn.

If you want to be a god among men, you have to do more, and by that I mean a lot more, than keep your hands off your genitals. That's definitely part of it, but being an "alpha" or whatever your goal is, isn't that simple.

 

Hitler and staling might have been smarter than their peers but they had high school education level top, they were also just like mussolini not born in any type of wealth as stalin was robbing banks in his youth and hitler was a tramp in vienna. Of the three only hitler can be said to have had charisma.

The reason ghenghis is looked up to from some is because he was born in obscurity, with nothing other than some hereditary tribal title which was wrenched from his father. The guys was actually a slave for a time and likely spend much of his youth being a mercenary as many mongols were before his rise. From there on he managed to make himself one of the most "successful" self-made man ever despite being illiterate. The same thing was true of the first ming emperor and alexander receive too much praise, much of his success is owned to his father who usurped the throne, built macedonia from the ground up and ended with the most powerful army in the world at the time. Alexander however inherited something like a 3-6 month treasury if i remember right, his success had as much to do with his own skill than luck and the ineptitude of darius. This is also true for most of the other great* conquerors.
Most of the time the country they were attacking were in the midst of political unrest or even civil wars.

 

Still though, I think there is a difference between ejaculation through sex and ejaculation through masturbation/PMO.

Also, I think he died in his early 60's? If what I read on the Internet just now is correct. So its not like he lived until he was 100 years old, so maybe the excessive loss of semen from his body did eventually weaken him.

So I would imagine he was probably feeling good from having sex with women versus how a man feels bad about PMO or just plain masturbation without porn.

So, I don't think there is any contradiction. He probably was strong, well built and had a lot of energy... and used up a lot of his energy and died in his 60's. Maybe if he was a strict celibate who never had sex or masturbated he would have lived until he was 100 years old.

 

You can't compare this men putting Caesad, Hannibal , Xerxes on the same phrase has Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini isn't comparable

 

What Genghis Khan did is beyond modern understandment, different times , it is very easy to judge but the fact is that Genghis took a nomadic steps people and turn them into an Empire !

 

But my favourite was Tamerlan that guy was trully a beast he said that he was the defender of islam but the fact is that he pratically only killed muslims ahahah what a legend

 

Fake news

 

Fake news

 

Maybe you should look at historical evidence like some of the examples i have provided you when it contradict with something people tell you. One of the guys you cited "miki ben" i saw had an article where he says humans were apex predators for 2 millions years until they became farmer. Humans are still predators, they kill millions of animals every day, they also have no animal preying on them thus they are apex predators. Just because most of their diet is not based on meat does no change that fact or are you saying bears are vegetarians? Even then this is precisely what i was telling you about their diet being mostly vegetarian.

My information about warriors come from historical evidence, asking some modern warriors these questions and even personal experience in both combat and long distance running. But there is no point going further in this since you obviously haven't bothered looking at any of the example i gave you and mostly ignored my reply anyways.

 

For these Post-Industrial populists, I'll amend that education statement. You're right. If they attended university, they didn't learn anything and used it for networking instead. That's perfectly fine because, as you said, they were all clearly above average intelligence and the social strata had yet to settle into firm rules. It was better then, I think as it is now, to be adaptable than to know the rules. Stalin robbing banks was as much a political statement as it was a bid for money. He was definitely poor, as was Hitler. As for charisma... Hitler notoriously had loads of charisma, tot he point where it was almost magical. Stalin was more notable for his craftiness and social maneuvering, as he was able to smoothly transition from common Revolutionary rabble-rouser to plum Secretary position in the new regime, to adored dictator-for-life. That doesn't mean he was without charm. Just look at his picture from his early 20's. Dude was definitely popular with ladies. He successfully delivered many speeches before the audience was threatened with a tenner in the gulag if they didn't clap, and Woodrow Wilson personally reported he liked "the little bastard..." until Stalin double-crossed him and the US. Mussolini was definitely charismatic. He gets the least credit among the modern unhinged despots because he sucked at war even harder than Hitler, but in terms of rallying a nation to his cause, he provided the template for Hitler's Nazi Party. Practical Nationalistic Fascism belonged to Mussolini's Italy. Germany only copied it, ironing out the kinks to make it more efficient as Germans do, and of course they could never admit they copped their philosophy from an inferior race, but they absolutely did and Mussolini was the one who made it into a philosophy worth duplicating. He was absolutely magnetic during speeches, and if you want to talk about the combination of strong leaders with dick-numbing libido, Mussolini was famous for it. Or infamous, depending on how your personal sexual ethic bends. He kept multiple mistresses at once, and was always up for a tryst (pun 100% intended). He openly bragged about it, personally equating his sexual energy with raw masculinity. He once requested women to surrender their engagement/wedding rings to his regime, and when they came in by the thousands, he smugly took that as an overt symbol of his personal sexual dominance over both them and their husbands. Disgusting and horrifying as these men could be, all of them had loads of charisma.

Agreed, there are several other extremely successful men from history who defied odds and built regimes. Aystages, for example, turned the Medes from a minor Assyrian tribe into the rulers of the Cradle of Civilization, Cyrus overthrew the Medes and used their legitimacy to make the Persians the ruling sect, Darius usurped Cyrus' royal line and saved the Empire, and Xerxes perfected the art of Empire and ran the Middle East like a well-oiled machine. One that couldn't beat the backward Greeks, but that's a whole story. There were barbarians, like Vercingetorix the Gaul (who would have won if not for another inspiring figure, Julius Caesar), Spartacus the gladiator, and Theodoric the Goth, who fought the invincible Roman war machine with varying success. Attila the Hun somewhat replicated Djengis Khan's feat of assembling nomadic tribes into a formidable army. And of course, who can forget Mohammad. The mention of the Khan being a slave for a time reminds me of St. Patrick, another erstwhile slave that found near impossible success in a much different sphere. There are also modern examples of men who used less to accomplish more than their peers, politically, financially, artistically, etm. I'm not trying to completely stamp out individual ambition. I'm also very much acknowledging that my original statement, claiming all these successful men had all the same advantages, isn't true. It was glib and dashed out quickly for time. Each rise to power has nuances, ones I ignored in favor of making a quick statement. The real intent of my statement remains true, though.

These men were willing to use others for their own advantage. Many, most, talked a big game about "honor," but they abandoned those principles the moment it wasn't advantageous for them. They just used their savvy and PR machine to cover up and/or justify their ambition. If that's the kind of man you or @Alcatel1312 or @Varangian Guardsman want to be, I guess that's fine. The odds that we'll interact with them in any real life, consequential context are nearly negligible, but if we do happen to have that challenge, I guess we're forewarned. It's not the kind of man I want to be, though. And as much as I admire Djengis Khan for overcoming his "mean" circumstances (a low title is still more than I ever had) and making the sporadic, contentious, "backward" Mongolian tribes into a military powerhouse that menaced both the West and the East, I'm still critical of his personal spite. The mounds of hands and heads he assembled, the way he ordered the fields salted, the destruction of libraries and loss of knowledge that came from it, how he ordered molten silver poured down the throat of a once-defiant mayor. And the argument, "Yes, but he accomplished great things" is, to me, analogous with Hitler's ability to turn Germany from a defeated, economically oppressed nation into an Industrial powerhouse... and an obscenely racist/eugenicist regime that killed millions, or Lenin & Stalin's ability to turn the peasant nation of Russia into another economic superpower... and a humanitarian nightmare police state that killed tens of millions, through everything from gross mismanagement to overt oppression and industrialized murder. These are men who made Pride and Envy their gods, and I don't want to be like them.

I don't want to be a victim, either. I don't want to make myself weak, so I am used by men like this in whatever microcosm I exist in that distantly replicates their high-stakes nation building. Not, of course, that it makes a difference because my personal circumstances have taken me far from most competitive spheres, but that's another story. Bottom line, though, I don't want to be like any ambitious nation builder because I am not willing to pay the price for greatness, and I am suspicious of those who do want to be like them. If a person wants to be like Djengis Khan, it either means they don't understand Djengis Khan, or they are people who will either use or destroy me, and everyone else, in their path to greatness. In short, I think they are either naive or evil.

I can see by statements from these other, presumably young men, that they disagree. They think Djangis Khan was good and should be emulated. That's a difference of opinion, and that's fine because, as I also observed, successfully ambitious people have a lot more going for them than a lack of porn. Other people can be, in my estimation, naive or evil, and still be incompetent to execute their vision and obtain the results they want out of life, and I'm also okay with that. It's the ones who are selfish and good at it that I'm afraid of.