In my AP World history class detailed how Alexander the Great's armies spread from their kingdom of Macedonia and conquered Greece, Egypt, and Persia, creating an empire from the Mediterranean to India in the 300s B.C. The result of his actions was the Hellenization of this area that allowed Greek culture to disseminate over this whole area. And it also covered the 50s B.C., where Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and brought Mediterranean culture to what is modern-day France. And thanks to the Mongol invasions and Ghengis Khan, the Asian steppes, China, much of the Middle East, and parts of Russia ceased to have internecine fighting and became an place where trade and culture could freely move.

But what the class conveniently glossed over is the literally millions of people who died in the process. The Mongols alone may be about 50,000,000, which is staggering considering the world population at that time. I've read historians trying to justify this, saying that the societies they conquered were stagnant and needed a figure to spark change. Without the sudden rupture in power structure and the later stability, the societies would've remained in their corrupt and declining state.

But the intentions were never that. All three of these gentlemen were not thinking of ushering a new era of peace, culture, and stability; they just wanted loot and power. DNA implies 1/200 of our male population are direct descendents of Ghengis Khan; that's how many women he raped during his wars. Roman society was enriched thanks to everything Caesar brought back from Gaul and he received more triumphs than any other man previously. Alexander started mimicking Persian culture because it suited his tastes of absolute monarchy, and when his advisors pointed out that's not how it's done in more egalitarian Greece, he killed them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Do we still have to admire the men even if there were unintended consequences? Basically these guys set out to kill, rape, and pillage, and were very successful in that. It was just their efforts also has positive byproducts. Let me give an example: Germany was definitely in a bad state before the rise of Hitler. Not only did he bring his country back on track, his actions opened the door for later American ascension and a new era. Who knows what the world would've been like without WWII? American industry was already on a solid path to supremacy since the late 1800s, but WWII took out all other major competitors other than the USSR. Without Hitler, America as I know it and grew up in would not have existed. Right now none of us would approve of what Hitler did, but we're still close to the events. There are still people alive with the tattoos on their arms. If in coming generations when they're more removed, would historians suddenly say, "Yeah, what Hitler did was ultimately a good thing." Because I know the Persians who died under Alexander, the Celts who died fighting Caesar, and fucking everyone who the Mongols wiped out definitely wouldn't say that. But we're claiming that today.