merriam, just to clarify

"But when we judge, for example, Socrates, we don't take the fact that slave ownership and sexual activities with boys were accepted elements of Greek culture, because they were just that, elements of culture, it's not as if Socrates himself had concoted them as part of an evil plan to "corrupt" his society. He was, simply, not the cause of those practices."

Just to clarify this point (I understand that you didn't say that Socrates was in favor of slavery), maybe a better example in this case would be Aristotle. Socrates could be used better as an example of "moral progress", maybe. Though, of course, we have to make a distincion between the historical Socrates and his character in Plato's novels, which was opposed to it, we have only these second hand bits to go by, since he didn't leave anything written down. By contrast, both Plato and Aristotle were not opposed to slavery (though Aristotle in particular is often misquote dramatically on this point). Aristotle made a distinction between "natural" and "non natural" slaves, arguing that only the former should be kept as slaves, whereas Plato is often quoted to have said that "Slavery is a system of the most complete injustice.", but in fact the society he describes in Laws have a separate slave cast, as explained http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/468/what-were-platos-view-on-slavery- in-particular-with-respect-to-his-proposed-ut ... in general, even just by looking at Utopia, it is clear that the value system was quite different.

Incidentally, the figure of Genghis Khan has been reevaluated by some recent historiography (Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (2004), Jack Weatherford)., though some of the ideas are controversial. To quote from the Wikipedia article:

"In 1979 Paul Ratchnevsky wrote about the Khan's knack for forging alliances, his fairness in dividing the spoils, and his patronage of the sciences.Similarly, Saunders and H.H.Howorth have argued that the Mongol empire contributed to opening up intellectual interactions between China, the Middle East, and Europe. The book suggests that the western depiction of the Mongols as savages who destroyed civilization was due to the Mongols' approach to dealing with the competing leadership classes.[...] He suggests their rule was less burdensome than that of European nobility due to lighter taxes, tolerance of local customs and religions, more rational administration, and universal education for boys."

"Weatherford explores Genghis Khan's legacy and influence; he attributes many aspects of the Renaissance, such as the spread of paper and printing, the compass, gunpowder and musical instruments such as the violin, to the influence of trade enabled by Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire. Weatherford suggests that the European Renaissance was a rebirth, not of Greece or Rome, but of concepts from the Mongol Empire"

"Democracy and Government: Suggests that some of Kublai Khan's reforms in China, which localized power and gave political strength to individual farms, was the first democratic experience in China."

"Weatherford attributes the following to Genghis Khan's rule:

- Unprecedented religious tolerance
- Low level of discrimination toward other races
- Low level of meddling with local customs and culture
- The idea of rule by consensus within Mongol tribes
- Culture of meritocracy
- Culture that believed in the rule of law
- Strong sponsorship of Eurasian trade
- Building of roads to support trade
- First culture to promote universal literacy
- First international postal system
- First widespread use of paper money
- Reduction of the use of torture in the penal system
- Belief in diplomatic immunity for ambassadors/envoys
"

But otherwise it is like reading the abridge version of someone's original character who just happens to share name with a historical figure, it all leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

not similar to the heroes of modern world that are more moral centered, but heroes of civilization that eke out living in an unforgiving world thus warriors that bring prosperity to his people will be considered heroes. this is bloody and violent, because that is how the world was, and still is in other part of the world.

this is a tale of Genghis Khan when he was a young, bloodthirsty lad who believe the heavens will guide him. it is quasi-historical, using real people and exaggerate them to create the best story. for people who crave no-holds bar destruction, for readers who have no need for moral ambiguity and romanticism, this is a great manga for you.

i wish there are more tales since he really was loved by the gods, and seeing him maturing to one of the greatest warlord of all time is fascinating. especially since he did everything by force and we dont have to go through boring political maneuver that can feel more disgusting than a head on a pike

The thing is... I have no idea who Genghis Khan is nor do I want to know. Sure, I know he was a real person from long time ago. But then again, I don't really care so I will not compare this manga from real life.

I recommend this manga for those who like wars and fighting category. Contrary, if you don't like reading about wars, bloodshed and fighting then this is not probably for you.

The best thing I like about this manga is the main character. He was like a wolf in human skin. A savage cunning warrior. The worst thing I hate is the plot near the ending. How did he became a hero? I will never know....

Also, do not expect much from this manga's 48 chapters. I don't know if there is a sequel or not, but I wish it has. The ending... didn't feel like one. You'll know what I mean when you do read it.

... Last updated on January 17th, 2015, 1:28am

"historical romance"

I think you meant to say "historical novel", matriarchic. Also, copying and pasting quoted pieces from wikipedia makes it so that the numbers between squared brackets that denote the links will point to the pages of other mangas on the site.

That said, his life is certainly interesting, and certain episodes of his life (the kidnapping and rescue of his wife, the betrayal of his best friend, down to his best friend's last words before he died

"What use is there in my becoming a companion to you? On the contrary, sworn brother, in the black night I would haunt your dreams, in the bright day I would trouble your heart. I would be the louse in your collar, I would become the splinter in your door-panel....as there was room for only one sun in the sky, there was room only for one Mongol lord."

never knew that someone could actually utter such powerful -one feels a little self conscious to use the term "cool", because it sounds so superficial, but that's what they would sound like if I had read them in a novel, rather than in a Wikipedia biographical article- words staring death in the face, in real life... they have a certain movie/theatrical quality about them, that makes one say "the work is essentially already done for me", which might explain why his life has inspired so many movies and artistic adaptations) there is certainly enough material for a good manga. More than anything, there is a lot of material to pick from, and the author has decided to start right from the time he was a kid.

Another thing to notice is that the content of the manga is not black and white or superficial, despite what the summary might indicate: it's very "grey" and "realistic", think a "Game of Thrones", or even "Historie" feel, maybe even "Kingdom", given the fact that it starts from when he is a kid and has some of the "epicness" in the fights, as well as some of "Historie"'s strategic elements, given that both Historie's protagonist and Ghengis Khan are gifted in this regard, and the "naturally gifted" feel one gets when Historie's protagonist fight, because of his ancestry, and when remembering his mother... the other commonality might appear in the future, since both Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan decided to build empires, and presumably Historie's protagonist will help in this espansionistic project, so there is a similar "theme" -though of course I don't want to make a comparison between this and Kingdom or Historie, because the settings are all different, and Horizon has still comparatively very few chapters... in any case, even in case it won't manage to reach that level in the future, I can honestly say that the material I have read until now has been entertaining and captivating, well worth a read if you are into this genre (military historical fiction, particularly those depicting the birth of huge Empires from the ground up)-.

merriam, the site puts the comments on top of each other, when you say

"Just need to point out that this view is extremely one sided and narrow minded. Reading the Wikipedia entry gives a much more nuanced picture"

it is not clear that you were referring to ALT+CTL derogatory comment.

The wikipedia entry does indeed paint the picture of a much more cultured individual than the "unrefined barbarian" that might be in many people's mind. For example, the extreme ruthlessness during conquest was expected, but the side of religious tolerance during his administration was an element I didn't know about before looking it up (maybe because he is so much the iconic "warrior" that one doesn't think about the side "away from war", the tasks as a ruler and administrator). The manga does indeed a good job of highlighting that, and is historically accurate from what I can gleam from the Wikipedia's article. The actual history itself almost reads like a historical romance, it has an "epic" quality: the loyalty (concept of blood brothers) and friendship between the tribe, the drama of betrayal, the rescue of his wife and the way he accepted her as her only empress despite the uncertain descendance, etc. There is certainly enough material to make a good manga.

"Soon after Börte's marriage to Temüjin, she was kidnapped by the Merkits and reportedly given away as a wife. Temüjin rescued her with the help of his friend and future rival, Jamukha, and his protector, Toghrul Khan of the Kerait tribe. She gave birth to a son, Jochi (1185–1226), nine months later, clouding the issue of his parentage. Despite speculation over Jochi, Börte would be Temüjin's only empress"

"Temüjin valued loyalty above all else and also valued brotherhood.18 Jamukha was one of Temüjin's best friends growing up, but their friendship was tested later in life, when Temüjin was fighting to become a khan. Jamukha said this to Temüjin before he was killed, "What use is there in my becoming a companion to you? On the contrary, sworn brother, in the black night I would haunt your dreams, in the bright day I would trouble your heart. I would be the louse in your collar, I would become the splinter in your door-panel....as there was room for only one sun in the sky, there was room only for one Mongol lord."18"

"He was religiously tolerant and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji.19 The Secret History of the Mongols chronicles Genghis praying to the Burhan Haldun mountain."

"Temüjin began his ascent to power by offering himself as an ally (or, according to other sources, a vassal) to his father's anda (sworn brother or blood brother) Toghrul, who was Khan of the Kerait"

Just need to point out that this view is extremely one sided and narrow minded. Reading the Wikipedia entry gives a much more nuanced picture

"Genghis Khan is credited with bringing the Silk Road under one cohesive political environment. This allowed increased communication and trade between the West, Middle East and Asia, thus expanding the horizons of all three cultural areas. Some historians have noted that Genghis Khan instituted certain levels of meritocracy in his rule, was tolerant of religions and explained his policies clearly to all his soldiers.[46] In Turkey, Genghis Khan is looked on as a great military leader, and it is popular for male children to carry his title as name.47 Traditionally Genghis Khan had been revered for centuries among the Mongols and among certain other ethnic groups such as the Turks, largely because of his association with Mongol statehood, political and military organization, and his historic victories in war. He eventually evolved into a larger-than-life figure chiefly among the Mongols and is still considered the symbol of Mongolian culture."

Generally, he is considered as a heroic figure in Mongolia and Turkey, as well as some parts of China and Afganistan. In the other parts of those two countries as well as in Iran he is disliked.

Also, any evalutation of an historical figure cannot really be made in an anacronistic fashion (this is called "presentism" by historians). In particular, obviously one cannot place the blame of cultural phenomenan on the shoulders of a single individual. I don't know of a single ancient nation that was in principle against the concept of aggressive war for the purpose of conquest (this is why we had a Macedonian Empire, a Roman Empire, etc.), and certainly that was the case for the ancient steppes tribes. He was simply much more successful at it. But when we judge, for example, Socrates, we don't take the fact that slave ownership and sexual activities with boys were accepted elements of Greek culture, because they were just that, elements of culture, it's not as if Socrates himself had concoted them as part of an evil plan to "corrupt" his society. He was, simply, not the cause of those practices. Likewise, you don't exactly get a medal for thinking that slavery is not okay, and that war should be relegated to a last measure defensive activity. Those are simply cultural elements that you absorb by living in a modern society. If you were transported back in time as a toddler, and a newborn Mongol was brought to the present, your value system would be completely swapped, and each would see things with the eyes of the time periods you would be brought up in.

Of course, occasionally you have particularly insightful moral teachers. For example, Thomas Paine was against slavery when the practice were still commonplace. That's why he gets a point. On the other hand, Joe Black born twenty years ago down the street doesn't, because it didn't take him any effort, he made no contribution to moral progress. My historian friends at RenaissanceMathematicus (http://thonyc.wordpress.com/) get routinely pissed because of such cases of "presentism" by people they think they are historians because they read "one" book, or worse one wikipedia page, and the general public always too ready to go for overly simplified judgments and explanations... until now I took it with a grain of salt, because the point that one should compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, and look at thigs in their proper context, seemed to be self evident to me... turns out I was wrong about this point beign completely obvious and uncontroversial, because this is already the second historical manga I saw where some individual has decided to complain because oh, THOUSANDS of years ago people had a different outlook and a different set of moral values.

Consider for a second, please, that if we apply this reasoning recursively and think about how people a thousand years from now will look at us, and people a thousand years after them will look at them, and so on, they would conclude that we were barbaric monsters, and the ones after them will think the same of them, and so on, arriving at the absurd conclusion that no human that ever lived has ever been anything but a revolting monter beyond redemption. This would be the most extreme form of relativism, because then moral categories would become essentially useless, since they wouldn't allow us to differentiate between anything (and categories are made exactly to allow for such valutations).I don't pretent that everyone becomes a professional historian, but having a more open minded and nuanced view of the situation for a change wouldn't hurt (at the very least, it saves one from appearing like a hick or a "wikipedia intellectual" (the cultural version of the "internet warrior"). For that matter, feigning outrage at the barbaric elements of cultures that lived THOUSAND of years ago (those are thousands of years where our culture and value system has evolved) doesn't make one appear noble and sensitive, rather it makes one appear like a closed minded ignoramus that doesn't "get out too often" (interpret as "reading books"). In other words, it doesn't make one look any "cooler" -now, you don't see college professors reading Homer and going "What hero, this Achilled was a douchebag", right?-.

Frankly, ALT+CTL, I think that he means "hero" in the classical sense of "someone that accomplishes great deeds". Think Homeric heroes. For that matter, think Milton (Satan in Paradise Lost wasn't a "good guy", but had the "heroic" quality, it's a way of depicting the character, not a judgment on the moral content of his actions). I say this because in the tv series Romance Of The Three Kingdoms -at least according to my subtitles, I don't speak Chinese- you see the world "hero" used to describe Cao Cao, which is one of the "villains" in our modern parlance, I suppose. The "spiderman like" hero "with great power come great responsibilities" type is a comparatively recent concept -the world is used differently to describe Milton's Satan, or even Byron's "byronic" hero, etc.... it's more nuanced-. That's the most likely explanation, "hero" referred to the scale of the deeds, and the general ethos of striving/etc. (think Milton). Additionally, the author might not follow history strictly and provide us with an alternative characterization. He has the right to use artistic license any way he sees fit, he doesn't have to be constrained by common view and interpretation, can add things, and characterize in different ways, it's not supposed to be strictly an history book. In some respect, I was reminded of Kingdom and Historie (the parts where the protagonist fight, in particular the one with his "brother"), only limited to such scenes. Of course, that's a matter of personal opinion, so other might disagree, it's more of a general feeling than anything else. Another thing it reminded me of was the tribes to the North of the Wall and the Khal Drogo tribe in the Game of Thrones -it has to be taken in context, with some open-mindedness-.

Greatest hero!? give me break dude he massacred many people. He was military genius, not hero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Individual_battles _and_sieges