I think it’s a publication bias thing. Because so much was written about these people in their day, they become mascots for the time period. And what they did, while objectionable, is impressive. They had a massive influence on recorded history.

My own theory is that there is so much written in these times because of the massive inequality then. Books, statues, etc are expensive. In times of ecomonic equality, especially before the press, people would be less likely to waste time and resources on such things. Thats money better spent on improving their and their communities lives. But when you have massive inequality and a narcisist in charge, you get books, statues, and massive projects dedicated to the men who can afford them.

Conversely why do we act horrified that someone in the past didn’t act according to standards that only exist today and pressures that don’t.

A good though to have in ones mind when thinking about this topics is that you will probably be seen as someone horrible and barbaric with evil-morals by future standards.

We all exist because of those people’s exploits.

That’s basically where the concept of glory begins.

Do we glorify them, or do we just learn about them because they had a huge impact on the world?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone holding Genghis Khan up as a role model.

deleted by creator