Explanation: In the West and in China, Genghis Khan is often portrayed as a savage barbarian with few redeeming features other than some evil form of military genius. In the West, at least, this is a fairly recent development, dating back only to the 18th century AD, and enhanced by the development of ‘scientific racism’ in the same period and Yellow Peril style scaremongering.

However, to the Mongolians, Genghis Khan remains a revered figure, as a uniter and reformer who valued men for their merit rather than their birth, ending the centuries of chaos and infighting by bringing the Mongols together as one people. The Mongol Empire which formed then could stand against the pressure of neighboring sedentary polities which had so long used the nomad tribes as catspaws, vassals, and tributaries; and even turn the tables entirely. Thus, they remain quite proud of the Great Khan.

Modern histories tend to emphasize a more nuanced view of Genghis specifically, and the Mongols in general. It was absolutely a savage time and the Mongols certainly were no exception to that, so the question becomes “Were the Mongols worse than those they fought, or just more successful in their conquests in a shorter period of time?” And the answer is generally “Just more successful.”

… that being said, the Mongols did get up to some gruesome shit. After they won a battle against the princes of the Kyivan Rus, they, famously, executed said princes by partying atop of a wooden floor, slowly crushing them to death.

… this was actually considered an honorable form of execution suitable for respectable and noble men, as it prevented the Slavic princes’ blood from spilling on the ground. I suspect the extension of this ‘honor’ was not particularly appreciated by said princes.

That’s a badass statue, we need more colossal statues.

Be honest. Any nation would be proud to spring from an ancient warlord, and it is probably safe to say, they do.