Why is Genghis Khan characterized as a ruthless conqueror while Alexander and Caesar are praised as heroes?

[removeduser_7456288]

I understand most of Mongol history was written by their enemies, whereas Alexander and Caesar wrote their own histories, but why does the modern world hold a negative view of the Mongols compared to the Romans and Macedonians? Genghis Khan did not randomly slaughter villages, and when he did, it was for a good reason. For example, he slaughtered the Tatars for they killed his father. He slaughtered the Khwarizmi because their King lied about trade with the Mongol Empire and instead stole from the caravans and slaughtered its members. After conquest he was extremely tolerant, allowing religious freedom, securing trade routes, allowing people to live how they lived before, etc. He ordered the construction of the Mongol written language as well. The only reason more died was because Genghis was simply a better general, and could kill more. We see that with Caesar too, when Gaul is absolutely decimated by Roman conquest. Yet no one antagonizes the Romans for it. Alexander, after the Theban revolt, killed and enslaved more than two-thirds of the population. Why is the west biased against the Mongols?


I must add that the Gauls usually allowed the women and children to leave during a siege. When under siege by the Romans, the Gauls allowed the women and children to flee to freedom, as according to custom, but Caesar held them hostage and made the defenders watch their families starve to death. Yet we never hear about this.

I once saw someone compare Temujin to Hitler, which is completely disrespectful to victims of the Holocaust, as they are portraying Hitler as someone who was much better than he was.

[poa]

Genghis hired a lousy PR director, who let through small comments like

"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you,
to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears,
and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

in addition, hitler or any other upstarter for that matter, cant compete with genghis when it comes to mass genocide

[removeduser_7456288]

His enemies brought it upon themselves. It was not like Genghis did not give them a chance or try to have a friendly union with them before hand. Hitler's reasoning behind genocide was racial superiority, which made him bad. Genghis only cared for conquest, and if Alexander or Caesar had the chance, they would kill just as more. Thenceforth you are simply another uneducated person who is unable to think analytically.


Let enemy see loved ones die? Caesar was fine with letting the Gauls watch their wives and children die.

[poa]

lol

[Akarios]

Based on that logic the Assyrian Empire was benevolent too. They simply expected that all the conquered cities pay their taxes (i.e. tribute) on time, and if they failed, the entire Assyrian army would descend on that city, burn it to the ground, kill off all the men and older boys, sell the women and children into slavery, and proclaim to the rest of the empire, "These guys pissed us off a bit. BTW, your taxes are due."