Don't look too closely into your own ancestry; the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history.
I think you're forgetting about the fact that in all human history, Genghis stands out as one of the cruelest and most violent rulers. As far as I know, Iranians (Persians) never did the same thing to other nations, not even for revenge. I guess that's the main reason saving Iranians from "existential despair".
"Herodotus accounts for the turn of Harpagus' support to a version of the cannibal feast of Thyestes.[1] He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane, would give birth to a king who would overthrow him, ordered Harpagus to expose the child at birth. Harpagus, reluctant to spill his own royal blood, gave the child (Cyrus) to a shepherd named Mitradates,[2] who raised him as his own son.
Ten years later, when Cyrus was discovered alive, Astyages cruelly punished Harpagus by killing Harpagus' only son and feeding him to the courtier during a banquet. It is said that Harpagus did not react during the banquet, other than to gather the pieces of his son and remove them for burial."
Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
> He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane ...
Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
I don't understand how it's a fake account. Would you mind keeping the discussion on a civil level?
> Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians.
Yes, the Persians and the Greeks were at war and enemies. In fact, that was part of my point. The portrayal you have of Genghis Khan comes from his enemies too.
> Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man.
I understand how if you're not familiar with Herodotus it can be hard to believe anything he says since he does enjoy to add details to personify stories. That is no reason to discount everything he says though, most of ancient written history is embellished. There's a lot of work on the reliabiliy of his texts if you're interested.
> I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
Uh...absolutely? There is nothing uncivil about in and it's literally on the same topic that your post was about.
"The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within the interior space of two narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks) joined together one on top of the other with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey, and more honey would be poured on the victim to attract insects, with special attention devoted to the eyes, ears, mouth, face, genitals, and anus. In some cases, the executioner would mix milk and honey and pour that mixture all over the victim. The victim would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects which would eat and breed within the victim's exposed flesh, which—pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects—became increasingly gangrenous. The individual would lie naked, covered from head to toe in milk, honey, and his own feces. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that fatal dehydration or starvation did not occur. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation, and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.[1]."
Er... not sure what animals you're referring to?
Predators in general seem to be quite happy to chow down on prey regardless of what activity it's involved in at the time.
I would suspect rather easily, because they didn't do it.
Of course they do. A bunch of helpless babies and a mother distracted by them would be a windfall for any predator.
> I don't know how Mongols today live with that.
There is not a human being alive who doesn't have terrible atrocity in their bloodline. Genghis Khan isn't more evil just because he happened to be more successful than most.
Genghis Khan is simply Mongolia’s greatest hero. The West recalls only what he conquered, but Mongolians remember what he created. His empire connected East and West, allowing the Silk Road to flourish. His rule enshrined the concepts of diplomatic immunity and religious freedom. He established a reliable postal service and the use of paper money. Genghis Khan didn’t just conquer the world, he civilised it.
What they did to Iran (formerly Persia) and the middle east can not be forgotten. Killing a mother while she was breastfeeding her infant baby? Even animals don't do that. I don't know how Mongols today live with that.