IGX

I've been waiting to see this film...thanks for the review!

Excellent movie. Strong legs make a man happy.

Hagbard you are spot on. Mongol is a great movie..."Ghengis Khan" is a great book. I think they based the movie off of this book. I saw the movie after reading the book and was not disappointed. There are some subtle points that come up in the movie that might seem unimportant until one reads the book. I think the movie combined the persons of Jamuka and Temudgin's uncle, but that doesn't really change too much. Additionally, it was never mentioned that the reason Temudgin was first incarcerated/enslaved was because he murdered his older brother (Temudgin felt his brother was too overbearing.)

I hope they follow up with another movie about how he conquered everything in sight. He had revolutionary ideas that came from being beaten down for years. Temudgin's ideas on law, trade, conquering, mobile warfare, treatment of conquered people's were revolutionary at the time. Anyway, good book, good movie.

Bedlam 1946 wrote:"Ghengis Khan" is a great book.

What book you are talking about? Who author?

Bedlam 1946 wrote:Temudgin's ideas on law, trade, conquering, mobile warfare, treatment of conquered people's were revolutionary at the time. Anyway, good book, good movie.

Idea about "warfare" was simple enough - very big numbers.
"treatment of conquered people's..." was even more simplier - did you hear about pyramids of heads?
By the way ChingisHan - killed Jamuka.

Wild Bill wrote:

Bedlam 1946 wrote:"Ghengis Khan" is a great book.

What book you are talking about? Who author?

Bedlam 1946 wrote:Temudgin's ideas on law, trade, conquering, mobile warfare, treatment of conquered people's were revolutionary at the time. Anyway, good book, good movie.

Idea about "warfare" was simple enough - very big numbers.
"treatment of conquered people's..." was even more simplier - did you hear about pyramids of heads?

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Maki ... 199&sr=1-1

It is my understanding that the pyramid of heads was used to freak a village into surrendering. He used a lot of methods to get in his opponent's heads such as dragging things behind his horses to kick up more dust and make it appear that a larger army was coming, or catapulting heads into villages. He gave villages the option to surrender and bow to him or be decimated. Some surrendered and lived peacefully under his rule. He allowed conquered people to maintain their culture and religion. He did not always have huge numbers and his numbers aren't always what won his battles. One tactic used that I think was portrayed in the movie was to engage a larger force and then retreat. Over a period of days or weeks they would draw their enemies further and further from their supply lines and then destroy them. The Mongols warfare was also different from that of the time due to their mobility. They didn't bring large carts of supplies with them. They lived off the land and thus could move much faster than many of their enemies anticipated. I think it is amazing that he ruled over such a large and diverse group of people. Anyway, I'm no scholar when it comes to the Mongols. I read the book and saw the movie. I'm sure there is a lot that I have no idea about.

Bedlam 1946 wrote: Some surrendered and lived peacefully under his rule. He allowed conquered people to maintain their culture and religion.

"Some" - is the very impotant word in this sentense. ChingisKhan was more worse then Gitler. Some countries and nations where completly destroed!!!
This film not popular in Russia. Author try to rehabilitate man, whose doings just like doings of Gitler!

And numbers were just huge. When mongols come to russian town Ryazan, thtre where about 250 000 mongols. And how much can gather Ryazan's knyaz? Maksismum 15 000- 20 000!!! And so was in the most mongols wars.

I don't read that book. Will try to find it in russian.

Bill, we in the west have the privilege of enjoying Genghis Khan's story from a safe distance.

Stalin's too, for that matter.

Shaf wrote:Stalin's too, for that matter.

Stalin what?
What countries Stalin destroy or conquer? If you are talking about East Europe, it wasn't conquer. It was liberation.

раскулачивание

Fat Cat wrote:раскулачивание

What could you know about that? By the way, do you speak russian?
"раскулачивание" was in your own country after civil war :)
The size of "раскулачивание" in your books great larger than it was in life.

I guess that makes it all right.

In America, you don't understand раскулачивание. In Russia, раскулачивание does not understand YOU!

onealjn wrote:In America, you don't understand раскулачивание. In Russia, раскулачивание does not understand YOU!

Is not me, who used this word, so you understand it after all.

Wild Bill wrote:

onealjn wrote:In America, you don't understand раскулачивание. In Russia, раскулачивание does not understand YOU!

Is not me, who used this word, so you understand it after all.

Bill,

You have a lot to learn about 80's cold war Russian immigrant humor.

I just think it somewhat ironic that Ghengis Khan slaughtered and butchered his way through Eastern Europe and is comparable to Hitler, but Stalin starved 7 million Ukrainians and is considered a liberator.

National socialism and socialism walked hand in hand until Hitler and Stalin fell out. Hitler would have been a historical hero to you if they hadn't.

The world may have been a very different place.

onealjn wrote:You have a lot to learn about 80's cold war Russian immigrant humor.

I see you learn too much from that source :)

Shaf wrote: but Stalin starved 7 million Ukrainians and is considered a liberator.

bull shit.

You just need to read ucranian documents, not papers (American or Ucranian)

"From a policy of limiting the exploitative tendencies of the kulaks, we have gone over to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class." -J. Stalin

Source: "On measures against malicious slaughter of livestock", Central Executive Committee and Sovnarkom resolutions, January 16, 1930; November 1, 1930, in: Collectivization of Agriculture: Main Resolutions of the Communist Party and Soviet Government 1927-1935, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of History, Moscow, 1957, pp. 260, 336 (Russian).

Shaf wrote:National socialism and socialism walked hand in hand until Hitler and Stalin fell out. Hitler would have been a historical hero to you if they hadn't.

Wow! But USSR has defeated Hitker :)

Fat Cat wrote:"From a policy of limiting the exploitative tendencies of the kulaks, we have gone over to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class." -J. Stalin

So what? Where there about starving? or about Ucraine?

May be i need to remember you, how you "liberated" Iraq?

What I'm say is that up until Hitler betrayed Stalin, Germany and the USSR were allies whom admired and respected each other. After their falling out, Germany was slowly crushed between the armed forces of the US in the west and the armed forces of the USSR in the east.