Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 27th, 2017, 04:50 PM   #21

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,706
Blog Entries: 1

Problem is, many of us still kind of hv inside of us, an almost primordial penchant for glorifying & admiring conquest. And conquest inherently invites brutality. The greater a conqueror was, the more ferocious his brutality wud hv tended to be. It's just the nature of the beast.

Someone wants to see a mild, gentle-hearted conqueror? After his conquest has been well & properly made, perhaps, with a bit of luck. Like patronising culture & the arts, building libraries blah blah blah. After all the killings hv been prettily & neatly sanitised, air-brushed & glossed over. But certainly not before that, I reckon.

So, it's like, what gives?

Last edited by Dreamhunter; November 27th, 2017 at 05:00 PM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 4th, 2017, 12:48 PM   #22
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: Here
Posts: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by turing View Post
This notion that historical brutality is somehow relevant and should be taken into account when making some assessment is annoying. What is more annoying is that this stupid notion is provided (not saying you did OP) as an element of morality.

Anyway, I couldn't care less if he was brutal. He's one of the finest commanders of all times.
I've never understood how people can dismiss the negative actions as not mattering when discussing legacy's and such just because it was a different era. I'm skeptical that no one back then lived relatively peaceful lives.
Would you dismiss the actions of Isis or the nazis mattering because at that time they considered their actions as just and right and moral?
justin3651 is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 02:13 AM   #23

turing's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Antalya
Posts: 508

Did you just compare Timur with ISIS and Nazis?
turing is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 01:30 AM   #24

Haardrada's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Northumberland
Posts: 513

To debate the morality and suffering of war reflects a modern cosciousness of waste and loss..but Timur was from a different time when such a high minded conscience wcarried little or no weight.

You can read off several names of Leaders and Conquerors through the ages and call them all butchers but really they were using every tool in their arsenal to achieve their goals.

I admire Timur, not for his brutality but for his rise from obscurity to become so famous (or infamous depending on your opinion).He used cruelty and terror much as Ghengis had done to get his enemies to give up without a fight or punish a revolt.He was supposedly poorly educated yet showed exceptional intelect,diplomacy and judgement which surely could not come from experience alone?

He had a strong following,only trusting his most intimate friends and family in high position and kept the army constantly active and away from their homeland to avoid internal strife.The European powers feared him and sent emissaries to befriend him.

His Military abilities were exceptional-defeating all opponents,managing to move and supply his diverce army over different extremes of climate and terrain.

Unlike Ghengis he was not just a destroyer,his patronage of arts and culture could be counted as narscasistic but his interest in building and architecture has left a legacy which is still visible today.
Haardrada is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 02:13 AM   #25

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,046

Taimur Lang is the correct way the name should be pronounced, and not in the vulgarised English spelling Tamerlane.
I really fail to understand why historical truths , howsoever ugly and brutal, need to be neglected or glossed over or both. Taimur Lang as well as the old Persian King Nadir Shah and Jangez Khan ( not Chengiz Khan ) were barbaric killers of people whom they conquered either in battle proper or after the battle was won. Nadir Shah had arranged to erect many towers of the skulls of Hindus whom he slaughtered when he conquered Delhi and surrounding areas.
Taimur means Iron. Taimur Lang probably means Iron hearted.
There has been a recent controversy in India over ' Taimur Lang ' , when a popular Indian cine actress named her child ' Taimur '. There was an uproar with many people protesting over the social sites like Twitter that a child can be named after a mass killer of the Hindus. The actress, a Hindu has married a Muslim. That added to the uproar !
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
lame, thoughts, timur



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Limp or lame kings LegioXIII General History 38 December 5th, 2014 04:23 AM
Tamer the Lame's Injury Gaius General History 1 September 21st, 2011 07:17 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.