A few months back, I watched a movie ‘Mongol’ showing childhood of Genghis Khan (one of the most ferocious invader in the world history). He had to live a tough life amongst enemies, who exploited him to last level. He and his family suffered a lot, which probably made him so tough and heartless leading the cruelties and atrocities he committed later in his life.
What do you think are the psychological reasons behind this ferocious behavior of invaders across the history?
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
^ I think we need a psychologist here…just saying 
most of these invaders lived rough and tough and started fighting for control over land at a very tender age.
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
Who other invader do you think had to live tough childhood?
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
Greed and cultural environment? May be most invaders of yesterday can be classified as Psychopaths ?:)
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
There are many other propel who have been throu alot yet they turned out a good human being and there are people who have had a wonderful childhood and got everything they want but they became evil.
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
Greed and cultural environment? May be most invaders of yesterday can be classified as Psychopaths ?:)
how cultural environment affected invasions, when most of the invaders like Babar always praised / preferred their culture over the culture of invaded territories?
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
There are many other propel who have been throu alot yet they turned out a good human being and there are people who have had a wonderful childhood and got everything they want but they became evil.
Then what motivated these invaders to brutalities?
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
Muqawwee123, got to say that you come up with some awesome discussion threads.
I've thought about this before, and I have my philosophy. I think someone who is a cruel leader is one that usually takes his position by force not diplomacy. So firstly, he does not believe in what is right. He obviously does not have a plan but rules by brute force. Now you ask why and the reasons are clear. There are good people and bad people. While our circumstances play a big role in shaping who we are, we are all born with certain traits. You can see that in your own children. I have 2 and can see how different they are although they are being raised in the exact same environment by the exact same people.
So I think that Genghis Khan by nature was a brutal person who got pleasure out of tormenting people. He is known to have slaughtered the locals during invasion. I'd think if he had such a harsh childhood, perhaps an element of empathy would play a role in the way he did things, but I suppose that was just not part of who he was.
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
but we all should remember his brutality was one of reason for his great victories.....
his aim of killing male population of invaded country was to destroy the capability of his enemies to raise an army against him....
and those were the times when one used to get power either by inheritance or by force....
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
but we all should remember his brutality was one of reason for his great victories.....
his aim of killing male population of invaded country was to destroy the capability of his enemies to raise an army against him....
and those were the times when one used to get power either by inheritance or by force....
The movie 'Mongol' shows that Genghis wife was abducted and remained in custody of that person for years. Many historians believe that Jochi was not Genghis son. Instead of observing this trauma in his life, Genghis didn't stop atrocities in invaded areas against women and children.
If we say his attitude against men of invaded areas was to annihilate enemy force, what is the reason behind harsh behavior against women and children?
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
The movie 'Mongol' shows that Genghis wife was abducted and remained in custody of that person for years. Many historians believe that Jochi was not Genghis son. Instead of observing this trauma in his life, Genghis didn't stop atrocities in invaded areas against women and children.
If we say his attitude against men of invaded areas was to annihilate enemy force, what is the reason behind harsh behavior against women and children?
It was mind set of his society.....they were nomads..and it was common for them to kidnap women....
I read that he used to point towards wheel of his chariot and say that kill all male who have more height than the wheel...:(
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
Muqawwee123, got to say that you come up with some awesome discussion threads.
*I've thought about this before, and I have my philosophy. I think someone who is a cruel leader is one that usually takes his position by force not diplomacy. So firstly, he does not believe in what is right. He obviously does not have a plan but rules by brute force. Now you ask why and the reasons are clear. There are good people and bad people. While our circumstances play a big role in shaping who we are, we are all born with certain traits. You can see that in your own children. I have 2 and can see how different they are although they are being raised in the exact same environment by the exact same people. *
So I think that Genghis Khan by nature was a brutal person who got pleasure out of tormenting people. He is known to have slaughtered the locals during invasion. I'd think if he had such a harsh childhood, perhaps an element of empathy would play a role in the way he did things, but I suppose that was just not part of who he was.
Exactly people raised in same environment under same people behave differently. If we see example of Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb, they brought-up in same environment, but today one is the symbol of tolerance and other is portrayed as a villain by a group of historians. The reason behind Aurangzeb's behavior may be priority of Shahjahan towards Dara (who was the eldest son), which finally lead Aurangzeb to behave like this (killing all his brothers and imprisoning the father).
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
It was mind set of his society.....they were nomads..and it was common for them to kidnap women.... I read that he used to point towards wheel of his chariot and say that kill all male who have more height than the wheel...:(
I think its just not the nomad society which behaved brutally against women. Many invaders from so called civilised societies took women as war booty.
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
yes at that time.it was common for invaders to treat women as booty.................:(and even today its not that rare....
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
Exactly people raised in same environment under same people behave differently. If we see example of Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb, they brought-up in same environment, but today one is the symbol of tolerance and other is portrayed as a villain by a group of historians. The reason behind Aurangzeb's behavior may be priority of Shahjahan towards Dara (who was the eldest son), which finally lead Aurangzeb to behave like this (killing all his brothers and imprisoning the father).
Both Dara and Aurangazeb were native born so not sure they can be classed under invaders. Dara would have made a fair and tolerant ruler IMO but Aurangazeb had daddy issues and he was trying to hold on to his empire which was slowly disintegrating and did not have much time for invasions.:D
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
yes at that time.it was common for invaders to treat women as booty.................:(and even today its not that rare....
It came from outside. Before we did not have women as warbooty perse in our culture. There were marriage alliances that were forced on a defeated king but slavery esp of women of the conquered was not a subcontinental practice. When Afghan barbarians started the practice of taking women as warbooty, there was an increase in practices like Jauhar and Saka among Rajputs which was initially recorded and frequently occured during the Kilji and Tughlaq eras .
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
I think I should watch mongonli first
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
Invaders the world over are generally disliked. When they invade , there are two ways they can have any measure of control over the invaded.
1. By being brutal and suppressing the conquered else there is always scope for rebellion and their position will never be secure. This is achieved by large scale looting, enslavement, oppressing the culture of the defeated and massive killings and tortures. This has an effect on the psyche of the conquered and in a few years the invader cements his rule and goes down in history books as a bigot. This is the easiest way to maintain control.
2. The second method is way harder and is the reason that invaders do not opt for it. This can take a while but the rewards are worth it. The second way is to win the affection and respect of the conquered. This is done by bringing out reforms, good governance and being genuinely interested in the welfare of all the citizens including the conquered. Phew... Hard work indeed. That is why this is not usually preferred. The only invader who was successful at this in the subcontinent who comes to mind is Emperor Ashoka after his reformation who went form being Chand Ashok to Devanapriya(beloved of the Gods) and Priyadashin ("He who regards everyone with affection"). The rulers who accomplish this go down in History as one the greatest rulers who ever lived. :)
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
It came from outside. Before we did not have women as warbooty perse in our culture. There were marriage alliances that were forced on a defeated king but slavery esp of women of the conquered was not a subcontinental practice. When Afghan barbarians started the practice of taking women as warbooty, there was an increase in practices like Jauhar and Saka among Rajputs which was initially recorded and frequently occured during the Kilji and Tughlaq eras .
What is Saka? What about practice of Sati? Did that also motivated by wars by any chance?
Re: Pshyche of Invaders
What is Saka? What about practice of Sati? Did that also motivated by wars by any chance?
Saka went hand in hand with Jauhar. When defeat was unavoidable, the Rajput women and children committed Jauhar. The Rajput men would know of the fact and that they had lost their near and dear ones and families and so were filled with a sense of nothing to live for. This translated into rage on the battlefield where they would fight to their death taking as many enemies with them as possible. The fight to the death from the male perspective was called Saka.
Sati is a barbaric tradition of obscure origins with no religious sanction and was rightly banned by mughals and British.
It was common in western India mostly among the Rajputs and Kshatriyas (warrior community). Many of the Kshatriyas were descendents of Central Asian tribes and some believe that it was a central asian tradition where at the death of the head of a household, his favorite wife, animal, servants were buried alive with him to ease his life in death which was modified to an extent where the wife was burnt on the funeral pyre of the dead husband .
Another view is that it arose from the practice of Anumarana which is similar to the previous theory. Anumarana was not comparable to later understandings of the practice of sati**, since the practices were not restricted to widows — rather, anyone, male or female, with personal loyalty to the deceased could commit suicide at a loved one's funeral. These included the deceased's relatives, servants, followers, or friends. Sometimes these deaths stemmed from vows of loyalty.
This vile practice spread to other parts of India like Bengal where it was motivated by greed for property share to relatives which was easier if the widow was also dead. Still more than half of Sati incidences in the entire subcontinent were among the Rajputs alone.
Sahajanand Swami, was influential in the eventual eradication of sati. He argued that the practice had no vedic standing and only God could take a life he had given. He also argued that widows could lead lives that would eventually lead to salvation.
Rajaram Mohan roy the renowned reformer and william Bentick took it a step further and banned sati in British India.