Tamerlane the Great

Tamerlane the Great is a somewhat difficult character for historians to deal with. After all, he single-handedly was responsible for the deaths of some 5% of the total world population of his time. He had his soldiers build towers of skulls with mortar, very systematically, in order to act as "billboards" for what cities that wouldn't surrender to him would expect. He was certainly the most systematic in world history with this particular strategy of psychological warfare. And, he was invincible in battle. He defeated the Muslim Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, the Mamluks, the Russians, the Mongol Golden Horde, the Poles, the Indian Empires. And, at the time of his death, he was on the verge of attacking, and probably annihilating the Chinese Ming Dynasty, which had made the mistake of attracting his attention, he hadn't known about them before they sent ambassadors demanding tribute, who he made short work of. Likely, if he hadn't developed terminal pneumonia, being an old man, on the way, he would have made very short work of the Ming Dynasty. In terms of military skill, really, he should be rated number one in all of world history, no one ever so successfully destroyed so many enemies so completely as Tamerlane the Great did. However, he's usually ranked about number ten, by historians, as a general. I think this is probably because he was so incredibly violent and destructive. And, because his empire dissolved immediately upon his death. Historians simply don't want to acknowledge that someone so purely destructive, who really left little behind of much value on his death, could have been the world's greatest conqueror. After all, many conquerors are profoundly honored by our society. If they won, and we were on their side. Prosperity, even now, is largely based on conquest. So, to associate these "honorable" conquerors, with someone as obviously violent as Tamerlanethe Great, whose dominion no longer exists, goes against the grain of historians, who, after all, are professional academics, and, therefore, to some extent politicians. They fear discrediting these "noble" conquerors, OUR noble conquerors, who we, to some extent live off. These brings up the broader question of what human society, and to some extent human life is really about. And, that is a difficult question indeed! There is enormous competition in human life, and, there always has been. Modern man apparently outcompeted Neanderthal man 40,000 years ago, so Neanderthals went extnct. So called "civilized" societies outcompeted older hunter-gatherer societies, despite the fact that up until the last couple of centuries, hunter-gathers actually had healthier lifestyles, and lived longer than most people in the civilized world. Where are we heading, and why? To what extent does the mass murdering sociopath Tamerlane the Great represent the human ideal, in a sense? Is there a better way? What is it exactly? #history #philosophy #sociology