PDA

View Full Version : Mongols - the Ultimate Superiority?



Tribunale Dei Minore
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 08:41 PM
Though few in number (approximately 200,000 people at the height of their empire), Mongols were important in world history. Under the leadership of Genghis Khan, the Mongols created the largest land empire in world history, ruling 13.8 million mile² (36 million km²) and more than 100 million people. At their height, their empire spanned from Korea to Hungary, and included most of the lands in between, such as Afghanistan, Georgia, Armenia, Russia, Persia, and much of the Middle East.


The Mongol Empire was founded by Genghis Khan in 1206. At its height, it was arguably the largest contiguous empire in human history, stretching from Southeast Asia to Europe, covering 13.8 million square miles or more than 35 million square kilometers. According to some sources, the empire encompassed almost 50% of the world population, including the most advanced and populous nations of that time: China and many of the main contemporary states of the Islamic world in Iraq, Persia, and Asia Minor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_empire


LOL,
200 000 mongols mastering over half of the world and the most advanced nations of that time.
0,2 million Mongols ruled 100 000 million.

Ratio- 1(small, stocky mongol) : 500 (submissive subjects)

Tribunale Dei Minore
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 08:44 PM
The Empire:
:cool


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Mongol_dominions.jpg

Tribunale Dei Minore
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 09:01 PM
Mongol Empire was governed by set of specific laws created by the great Khan himself called Yasa and the stiff penalty that resulted in breaking the laws made Mongol Empire one of the safest and the most effective institution that the Mongols never imagined to be. All throughout the empire, extensive postal system and trade routes were revived or created, which allowed many merchants, messengers and travellers from China, Europe, and the Middle East to have cultural exchange and have safer trade network. Mongol Empire, as stated in Yasa had religious tolerance, extremely clear rule of governance in which the great Khan was in direct administration of the Empire. General assembly similar to the parliament at modern times called Kurultai, was the meeting of Mongol chiefs and the Khan himself to discuss domestic and foreign policies that was crucial during that time, exhibiting clear unified administration. Also according to Yasa, chiefs and generals were selected based on meritocracy, and there was supposed to be no random vandalizing of civilian populations and thievery in any form or shape. In some accounts travellers from Europe were amazed by the organization and strict discipline of the people under Mongol Empire, so that for example, according to legends a woman caring a sack of gold from one end of the Empire to another can travel safely.

Genghis Khan also created national seal, universal written language and also exempted teachers, lawyers and artists from taxes and outlawed all forms of torture and humiliation in the empire.

The Mongols themselves had extreme sense of dedication, loyalty and endurance for their Mongol Empire, especially to the great Khan himself.

No Code
Sunday, November 14th, 2004, 04:41 AM
I consider the mongol light archery cavalarian the most deadly "no fire weapons" force ever

yamato
Sunday, November 14th, 2004, 05:29 AM
hah, if you wish to call what the mongol's created an empire then why not call china a free democracy and india an egalitarian state


the only they knew how to do was kill and conquer. they left the fine arts of administration to conquered and that is why their so called empired quickly disentegrated after genghis's death

Tribunale Dei Minore
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 12:03 AM
hah, if you wish to call what the mongol's created an empire then why not call china a free democracy and india an egalitarian statekeep the good trolling, but outside my treads.




the only they knew how to do was kill and conquer. they left the fine arts of administration to conquered and that is why their so called empired quickly disentegrated after genghis's death

In some accounts travellers from Europe were amazed by the organization and strict discipline of the people under Mongol Empire, so that for example, according to legends a woman caring a sack of gold from one end of the Empire to another can travel safely.

Genghis Khan also created national seal, universal written language and also exempted teachers, lawyers and artists from taxes and outlawed all forms of torture and humiliation in the empire.

Awar
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 12:16 AM
Seriously, Yamato is right about it somewhat.
It's not exactly what one would consider to be a state in the modern sense.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 12:39 AM
It's not exactly what one would consider to be a state in the modern sense.Is there any medieval state you would consider "to be a state in the modern sense" ?

yamato
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 03:22 AM
an empire needs permanency, mongols lacked permanency (50 years does not consitute permanency)

an empire needs its own civilization wonders and cultural distinctions ,the mongols hardly had any knowledge of construction (except for tents) and its cultural accomplishments were nill

an empire needs the recognition of its people, the conquered people of the mongol empire hardly recognized the legitimacy of mongol rule

Odin Biggles
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 03:30 AM
an empire needs permanency, mongols lacked permanency (50 years does not consitute permanency)

an empire needs its own civilization wonders and cultural distinctions ,the mongols hardly had any knowledge of construction (except for tents) and its cultural accomplishments were nill

an empire needs the recognition of its people, the conquered people of the mongol empire hardly recognized the legitimacy of mongol rule
This is true, for comparisons sake of an Empire look at my countries past Empire.

yamato
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 03:43 AM
and also an empire needs to leave a legacy more than just killing and brutalizing other people, true ill grant you the mongol empire did accomplish a few other things, but it is remembered as such





enough, i feel guilty enough badmouthing a kin of my race as is, so ill just end with a note that i think most historians would say that the mongols did rule over a huge empire, albeit a very short lasting one.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 05:52 PM
an empire needs permanency, mongols lacked permanency (50 years does not consitute permanency)The Mongolian Empire lasted little more than 100 years.


an empire needs its own civilization wonders and cultural distinctions ,the mongols hardly had any knowledge of construction (except for tents) and its cultural accomplishments were nillThe mongols were about 0,2 million people. They had knowledge of war, discipline and bravery. One can not expect of 0,2 million nomads ruling about half of the world population to spent their time in philosophy and natural sciences. More likely they were busy in sustaining their domination.




an empire needs the recognition of its people, the conquered people of the mongol empire hardly recognized the legitimacy of mongol rule
Of course the conquered people recongised the legitimacy of mongol rule. This is the definition of 'empire' and 'state'.
They were administated by mongols, isn't that a recognition?
They were forced to understand this through not especially pleasant process - killing and brutalizing as you mentioned.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 05:59 PM
and also an empire needs to leave a legacy more than just killing and brutalizing other people, true ill grant you the mongol empire did accomplish a few other things, but it is remembered as such
The critiques coming from "despotic militarist, atheist" himself!
How old are you?

Tribunale Dei Minore
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 06:22 PM
This is true, for comparisons sake of an Empire look at my countries past Empire.The only principal difference between the British and Mongolian empires is that the British lasted three times more (probably because, british had the demographical potenial to inhabit their colonies and thus permamently conquer them).
Both empires were based on 'killings and brutalization' though mongolians were better skilled in it.

yamato
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 06:23 PM
like i said, i don't want to argue this any further, ill say that you're most likely right on factual accounts, but this debate comes down to a moot argument over semantics, on your and mine definitions of "empire," i think such wasn't your purpose, or my purpose to begin with

ogenoct
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 08:55 PM
an empire needs permanency, mongols lacked permanency (50 years does not consitute permanency)
Then why are the Second German Empire and the Third Reich considered empires? The former lasted 47 years and the latter twelve years. According to your definition, both were not permanent and hence not empires. Many historians would disagree with your definition.

Constantin

Wayfarer
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 09:09 PM
I dont think you can credit 200,000 Mongols with the "Empire".
It is more accurate to call it Chengis Khans Empire than Mongol Empire.
Many of the soldiers werent even Mongols but were the subject peoples like the Central Asian Turkic nomads.
So it was not really the achievement of the Mongol people but rather the achievement of one truly remarkable man.

yamato
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 10:43 PM
many of these points can be argued and re-argued, depending on which source you obtain your information from and which qualifications for an "empire" people think is just. but i think the point about the mongols have been made and the subject beaten to death

Tribunale Dei Minore
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 11:17 PM
I dont think you can credit 200,000 Mongols with the "Empire".
It is more accurate to call it Chengis Khans Empire than Mongol Empire.
Many of the soldiers werent even Mongols but were the subject peoples like the Central Asian Turkic nomads.
So it was not really the achievement of the Mongol people but rather the achievement of one truly remarkable man.Please keep your ignorance outside my thread.
Ghengis Khan (means 'Universal Ruler') was certainly one of the most remarkable leaders in history, that's right.
However, all of his successors on the throne of were mongols and also achieved a lot.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 11:30 PM
many of these points can be argued and re-argued, depending on which source you obtain your information from and which qualifications for an "empire" people think is just. but i think the point about the mongols have been made and the subject beaten to death
Mongol Empire was perfectly 'an empire' in the same sense of which the Roman and British Empires were.


As the Mongols grew more powerful, advisers convinced Genghis Khan to start building a vassal empire. If the city-dwelling peoples were allowed to continue their way of life, they could produce a surplus of food and goods, a portion of which could be paid to the Khan as taxes. Given the Khan's extraordinary success in his aggressive foreign policy, this wealth could be equally extraordinary. The Khan agreed, taking his tribute in tax, and saving countless lives and cultures in the process. Until 1225 they continued these invasions through Western Asia, into Persia and Russia.

yamato
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 11:44 PM
The critiques coming from "despotic militarist, atheist" himself!
How old are you? and in response to an earlier post put forth by you, im not an actual
"despostic militarist," i just put it there to fill up space, because i don't really have a strong political orientation. and by the way, i am 17 years old

Tribunale Dei Minore
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 12:27 AM
I consider the mongol light archery cavalarian the most deadly "no fire weapons" force everCorrect observation.

Militery Innovations:

The western expansion was a success for the empire until 1241. As they encountered the peoples of Europe, the Mongols with their advanced way of warfare were unstoppable. One of key to successes was strategy used by Genghis Khan to chase the enemy leader until he was killed, so that he couldn't be a rallying point for his armies. Genghis Khan didn't place high importance on tracking down the enemy leaders before, and it haunted him later. The Mongols used, and introduced, several revolutionary military ideas to European combatants.


Use of articulation. Mongols used a system of horns and flags, blown or raised-and-lowered by the field commander. This allowed them to move their troops to preplanned positions on the field of battle, or modes of attack or retreat (such as charge, withdraw, or flank). In addition, they utilized subcommanders that were empowered to make decisions on the spot.


Mongols based their forces almost entirely on light cavalry. Light cavalry consisted primarily of archers and light swordsman mounted on horseback. Mobile and light cavalry could choose its battles and retreat from forces it could not handle, such as heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry lacked archers (who could kill at range) and was designed mainly to provide shock -- using weight, speed, and fear of their massed movement to break enemy heavy infantry lines.
Thus, when light cavalry met heavy cavalry, the lighter, faster moving, bow using, well-articulated light cavalry usually defeated mounted knights -- the cream of European military power.

Their conception of armor was markedly different. European knights used heavy plate armour (sheets of loops of chain and pieces of metal plate to protect the wearer, restricting vision and movement). Mongols used silk clothes. The cloth allowed Mongol warriors greater range of movement, better vision and endurance but still provided resistance to projectile weapons. It thus gave them a qualitative advantage over their opponents.


If a Mongol soldier was struck with an arrow, it penetrated the skin and sank into the flesh. However, the silk was not cut but pushed into the wound. Mongol doctors could easily pull an arrow from the wound, because it was wrapped in silk cloth. This reduced the chance of infection and made cleaning and dressing the wound easier, returning the skilled warrior to combat more quickly.
This simple procedure saved many lives. In a prolonged conflict, the Mongols retained more battlefield veterans than their opponents. This usually resulted in a situation where an army of veteran Mongols faced a conscript peasant army, with disastrous results for the Mongols' opponents.


Mongols utilized doctrines never before seen. As nomads, Mongols carried all of their wealth and provisions with them on horseback. It was equivalent to placing an entire city on horseback. It was more mobile than many of their opponents' armed forces, who were tied to the towns for supplies.
Since their way of warfare was superior (articulated veteran light cavalry) they could not be bested in combat. The traditional solution to this problem is to attack the opponents' supply tail (food, fields, water, etc.). However, their city-dwelling opponents were tied to a supply tail, not the Mongols.

These strategies and tactics assured them victory against foes throughout their history. The closest modern analogue is the modern aircraft carrier, with its ability to bring an entire city of warriors next door to an opponent on short notice, strike, and retreat, without pursuit.


Mongols' effective use of terror is often credited for the unprecedented speed with which Mongol armies spread across western Asia and eastern Europe.
First, the Mongols would provide an opportunity to surrender, usually on terms favourable to the Mongols. These offers were typically dictated to the first major population center in a new territory.

If the offer was refused, the Mongols would sack the city, execute the entire population (save a handful of skilled workers), and burn the city and the surrounding fields to the ground. They would often construct an edifice of cleaned skulls outside the walls of the destroyed city to serve as a reminder of their passage.

Finally, they would allow a few survivors to flee, to spread terror throughout the countryside. By first offering favourable (or at least acceptable) terms for surrender, and then invariably completely destroying any resistance, it is argued that Mongols forestalled most combat with invaded peoples. The Mongols quickly developed a reputation of being unstoppable, genocidal opponents. After the initial victories, and proof of the Mongols good intentions, it became more difficult for rulers to convince their people to resist an invasion.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 03:29 AM
The main reason why the Mongols expanded so far was because of their nomadic lifestyle. They would exhaust the resources in one region and move on to the next target.

What are your sources for your arguments Tribunale Dei Minore?

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 03:32 AM
.
Mongols based their forces almost entirely on light cavalry. Light cavalry consisted primarily of archers and light swordsman mounted on horseback. Mobile and light cavalry could choose its battles and retreat from forces it could not handle, such as heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry lacked archers (who could kill at range) and was designed mainly to provide shock -- using weight, speed, and fear of their massed movement to break enemy heavy infantry lines.
Thus, when light cavalry met heavy cavalry, the lighter, faster moving, bow using, well-articulated light cavalry usually defeated mounted knights -- the cream of European military power.

Well then perhaps you can explain to us how the Polish and German knights were able to stop the Mongol advance into Poland......I have an article from Military History Magazine about this event. Also how Dmitri Donskoi and Russian armies were able to defeat the Mongols....I have a book about that as well.

Most of the other "innovations" is pure nonsense.....European armies used flags and signals long before the Mongols, even before the Huns. :eyes

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 03:37 AM
Their conception of armor was markedly different. European knights used heavy plate armour (sheets of loops of chain and pieces of metal plate to protect the wearer, restricting vision and movement).

Thats a complete myth. If it restricted vision and movement, it would have been discarded for impracticality. Even plate armor was far more manuverable than we commonly think. The old image of knights having to be lifted onto their horses is complete myth....you can fall down, roll around, and get back up onto your feet in most(if not all) plate armour suits.

Whatever sources you're using, they're pretty weak on military matters and military history.

Wayfarer
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 07:04 PM
Please keep your ignorance outside my thread.
Ghengis Khan (means 'Universal Ruler') was certainly one of the most remarkable leaders in history, that's right.
However, all of his successors on the throne of were mongols and also achieved a lot.
Dont fuckin call me ignorant. This is free speech and i expressed a legitimate opinion.
Many of the soldiers of Chengis Khan were not Mongol. It is not an attempt to undermine Mongols.
The second language of the Empire was Turkic. Chengis Khan was half Turkic and could speak Turkish. The Goldon Horde was almost entirely Kypchak.

It is not ignorant to say that the "Empire" was not entirely an achievement of the Mongols, nor is it ignorant to say the "Empire is mostly the achievement of one man Chengis Khan.
Its just the truth. No need to get upset about it :shrug

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 07:38 PM
Indeed much of the Mongol army wasx not Mongolian. The Mongols conscripted soldiers from all over their Empire. I believe they recruited Chinese for most of their siege engineering, since Mongol nomadic warfare was ill-suited to such a task.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 11:01 PM
The main reason why the Mongols expanded so far was because of their nomadic lifestyle. They would exhaust the resources in one region and move on to the next target. The main reason why mongols expanded so far is that they were brave and skilled warriors and used military innovations. They were simply military superior.
See my previous post.


What are your sources for your arguments Tribunale Dei Minore?wikipedia. more or less eurocentristic, though not politically related.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 11:02 PM
The main reason why mongols expanded so far is that they were brave and skilled warriors and used military innovations.

:eyes That can be said with any major army in history!



wikipedia.

Right.......

Tribunale Dei Minore
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Indeed much of the Mongol army wasx not Mongolian.evidence? (not that it matters)
The important here, idiot, is that mongolians were the leaders and rulers of the army and the empire. Got it?


The Mongols conscripted soldiers from all over their Empire.Just like Roman, Spanish, French and British empires did.


I believe they recruited Chinese for most of their siege engineering,This is true. So what? Mongolians used chinese knowledge for filfiling their: Mongolian aims. In Europe and around the World is used chinese paper and gunpowder. Does it means that all paper written literacy is chinese? Or all battles won by fire-arms are won by the chinese? Whats your point ?



since Mongol nomadic warfare was ill-suited to such a task.unproven

Tribunale Dei Minore
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 11:39 PM
Well then perhaps you can explain to us how the Polish and German knights were able to stop the Mongol advance into Poland......German and polish knights were totaly incapble of stoping the mongolians. Unfortunately they were rather military inferior. See above.
Simply the Khan incidentally died and the mongol military leaders rushed back to the capital to claim the throne. Mongols were never defeated till then , they simply discontinued the invasion.


In 1227, Genghis Khan died, leaving the Empire to his son Ogquote=Berkano Khan. Ogquote=Berkano Khan continued the expansion into Western Asia, also conquering Korea and Northern China. The armies of the Mongols had reached Poland and Egypt by 1241, and looked poised to continue, when Ogquote=Berkano Khan died, leaving no clear successor. Mongol military leaders (who as descendants of Genghis Khan were possible heirs to the throne) rushed back to claim the throne. Nearly a decade later, Mongka Khan, grandson of Genghis and nephew of Ogodai, took the throne, through the assistance of his mother Sorghaghtani Beki. By this time, the Western expansion had lost its momentum.


I have an article from Military History Magazine about this event. Also how Dmitri Donskoi and Russian armies were able to defeat the Mongols....I have a book about that as well.bs or lies



Most of the other "innovations" is pure nonsense.....European armies used flags and signals long before the Mongols, even before the Huns. :eyes
Idiot, the first in Europe who used flags were the arabs. Surely no one in West used signals before the mongols.

The Mongols used, and introduced, several revolutionary military ideas to European combatants.
Use of articulation. Mongols used a system of horns and flags, blown or raised-and-lowered by the field commander. This allowed them to move their troops to preplanned positions on the field of battle, or modes of attack or retreat (such as charge, withdraw, or flank). In addition, they utilized subcommanders that were empowered to make decisions on the spot.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 11:48 PM
:eyes That can be said with any major army in history!It cannot. And mongols lead the only major army that manged to conquer half of the World population.



Right.......Do you have any more reliable, not politically oriented, link?
ChristianRetards.com?

Tribunale Dei Minore
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 11:58 PM
Many of the soldiers of Chengis Khan were not Mongol.
evidence?


The second language of the Empire was Turkic. link?

Chengis Khan was half Turkic and could speak Turkish.nonsense. however, evidence?

The Goldon Horde was almost entirely Kypchak.But lead and ruled by mongols. like a livestock.


It is not ignorant to say that the "Empire" was not entirely an achievement of the Mongols, nor is it ignorant to say the "Empire is mostly the achievement of one man Chengis Khan.mostly true.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 12:23 AM
evidence? (not that it matters)
The important here, idiot, is that mongolians were the leaders and rulers of the army and the empire. Got it?

Yes and?



Just like Roman, Spanish, French and British empires did.

Yes and your point is.........?



This is true. So what?

Proof that the Mongolians by themselves were not capable for doing such tasks. They needed the resources and skills of people they conquered.



unproven

Really?

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 12:26 AM
It cannot. And mongols lead the only major army that manged to conquer half of the World population.

That could be accounted just simply by their conquest of China, the most populous nation on earth. Britain and the other European empires conquered as much territory in the 19th century.



Do you have any more reliable, not politically oriented, link?
ChristianRetards.com?

Yes I do.....books and other sources written by scholars, not annoymous people on the net(like your sources).

Tribunale Dei Minore
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 10:09 PM
Proof that the Mongolians by themselves were not capable for doing such tasks.Mongols were very skilled and capable warriors and people who managed to conquer half of the world. If they were incable or insignificant they wouldn't
achieve so much. They were capable to learn from the people they conquered, to use what they've learnt and to develope it into successful policy. Is that too comlex for your mind to assimilate it? Is that too much info?
Taras,
The period between 13th and 14th centures is called 'the age of Mongols'.
Most of the territory between Korea and Germany was named 'Mongol Empire'
Obviously these gyus (Mongols) were rather capble at least in war and rather important. Otherwise the empire would be called 'the empire of the chinese tactics' or 'the empire of the conscripted soldiers by mongols'.




They needed the resources and skills of people they conquered. RETARD,
Every empire needed resources and skills of the conquered people. Thats the idea of building an empire. Thats the aim, and mongols achieved it.




Yes and your point is.........? You already showed you're too dull to understand any points.
However very significant and evident POINT IS THAT YOU ARE STUPID.(see the previous sentence).

Really?really.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 10:19 PM
Mongols were very skilled and capable warriors and people who managed to conquer half of the world. If they were incable or insignificant they wouldn't
achieve so much. They were capable to learn from the people they conquered, to use what they've learnt and to develope it into successful policy. Is that too comlex for your mind to assimilate it? Is that too much info?

yawn same was true for the Romans.



The period between 13th and 14th centures is called 'the age of Mongols'.

no its refered to as a period of the Middle Ages.




Obviously these gyus (Mongols) were rather capble at least in war and rather important. Otherwise the empire would be called 'the empire of the chinese tactics' or 'the empire of the conscripted soldiers by mongols'.


Yawn, half the troops of the Roman army were non-Italians yet it was still called the Roman Empire.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 10:57 PM
That could be accounted just simply by their conquest of China, the most populous nation on earth. Britain and the other European empires conquered as much territory in the 19th century. Mongols conquered and ruled for 100 years most of the civilized world.
Europeans conquered Africa, Australia and America most of which were retarded weakly populated territories. India and mesoamerica were the only civilized european colonies. Arabian world was also shortly under european rule.(less than 50 years). However applying your 'logic' the chinese gunpowder conquered them.



Yes I do.....books and other sources written by scholars, not annoymous people on the net(like your sources).Arguably wikipedia is the most reliable source on the Internet.
The same info you could find in every history textbook.

No offence, Retard , but as you are obviously an ignorant idiot, incapable to provide any credible, intelligent argument, why don't you Taras, just Shut The Fuck Up?

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 11:03 PM
Mongols conquered and ruled for 100 years most of the civilized world.

The Romans rules most of the civilized world for at least 500 years. The Hellenistic world lasted much longer than that.



India and mesoamerica were the only civilized european colonies. Arabian world was also shortly under european rule.(less than 50 years). However applying your 'logic' the chinese gunpowder conquered them.

Nice strawman.




Arguably wikipedia is the most reliable source on the Internet.

Written by a bunch of anonmyous people on the net, take it with a grain of salt.



The same info you could find in every history textbook.

Textbooks are known for their inaccuracies.



No offence, Retard , but as you are obviously an ignorant idiot, incapable to provide any credible, intelligent argument, why don't you Taras, just Shut The Fuck Up?

:rotfl LOL If you'd actually make intelligent arguments I might respond in kind...but as with Ross I dont waste my time with garbage!

Odin Biggles
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 12:49 AM
No offence, Retard , but as you are obviously an ignorant idiot, incapable to provide any credible, intelligent argument, why don't you Taras, just Shut The Fuck Up?
Im not joining the discussion but THAT is out of order.

If he is wrong explain to him in a civil manner, your obviously not stupid so dont give us that impression.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 12:54 AM
Isnt this free speech?

King Yngvar
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 11:17 PM
101 years (1206 - 1307) = more permanent than the Soviet Union. The Mongol Khanate was the largest empire ever...

Awar
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 11:33 PM
Actually, it was the largest land empire ever. Brits made a larger empire.

PS. It was never completely centralized.

PPS. This thread is so retarded I'm sorry I made this post.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Actually, it was the largest land empire ever. Brits made a larger empire.Nonsense, British empire had nearly 30 million sq. km. maximum, Mongol empire was 36 million sq. km. at its zenith.
And, Spammer, is there any human empire that is not land ???
"The larger" British empire had no land???


The British Empire in the early decades of the 20th century, held sway over a population of 400–500 million people (roughly a quarter of the world's population), and covered nearly 30 million square kilometres, (roughly two-fifths of the world's land area).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire


The Mongol Empire was founded by Genghis Khan in 1206. At its height, it was arguably the largest contiguous empire in human history, stretching from Southeast Asia to Europe, covering 13.8 million square miles or more than 35 million square kilometers. According to some sources, the empire encompassed almost 50% of the world population, including the most advanced and populous nations of that time: China and many of the main contemporary states of the Islamic world in Iraq, Persia, and Asia Minor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

Also most of the territories of the British empire were weakly populated, uncivilized areas-Australia, N. America, Africa. They were easy to be conquered.



PS. It was never completely centralized.Of course it was centalized.The Khan ruled it. Do not spam here, please



PPS. This thread is so retarded I'm sorry I made this post.You really have to be sorry you made this stupid "post".
The thread is very interesting and informative. Actually you are the only retarded thing here, too retarded to make any valid point (see above)

Tribunale Dei Minore
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 01:35 AM
PPS. This thread is so retarded I'm sorry I made this post.do not "post" here any more, thus no one (even you) will feel sorry.

Taras Bulba
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 02:06 AM
Actually the Mongol empire was not centralized.........thats not how the Mongols governed even in the steppes. It very much operated the same way the Hunnic Empire operated several hundred years before.

Taras Bulba
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 02:06 AM
PPS. This thread is so retarded I'm sorry I made this post.

Yeah really......Im not even trying in this thread......

Awar
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 03:13 AM
Nonsense, British empire had nearly 30 million sq. km. maximum, Mongol empire was 36 million sq. km. at its zenith.

During it's "zenith" ( which lasted a few decades ) it was already divided into 4 independent empires only loosely connected to the Great Khan in China.

Not to mention that many parts which appear on the map as part of the empire were merely vassal states.


And, Spammer, is there any human empire that is not land ???
"The larger" British empire had no land???

It wasn't all on one continent.



Also most of the territories of the British empire were weakly populated, uncivilized areas-Australia, N. America, Africa. They were easy to be conquered.

Weakly populated like India perhaps? Moron.
Or heavily populated like Siberia and Central Asia.



Of course it was centalized.The Khan ruled it. Do not spam here, please

The Ilkhanate, the Golden Horde, Chaghatai Khanate weren't integral parts of the empire like you imagine.


You really have to be sorry you made this stupid "post".
The thread is very interesting and informative. Actually you are the only retarded thing here, too retarded to make any valid point (see above)

:eyes What was it that you were trying to prove again?

Tribunale Dei Minore
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 12:05 AM
During it's "zenith" ( which lasted a few decades ) it was already divided into 4 independent empires only loosely connected to the Great Khan in China.Under the rule Kubilai Khan, Mongol empire was perfectly governed, reached its height and the authorities of the great khan were recognized in all corners of the empire.

quote:

'' Despite the few embarrassments, there is no doubt that Kublai Khan’s reign was the zenith of Mongol rule as a whole, stretching from China to Mesopotamia to the Danube to the Persian gulf – a size five times that of Alexander’s Empire. Although much of the land suffered great destruction during the conquests, the superior organized Mongol government that followed gradually made this up. Economic activity flourished and trade spread throughout the gigantic empire. Despite the formation of the Khanates in the other sections of the Empire, the authorities of the Great Khan Kublai were recognized in all corners of the Empire. Kublai enjoyed his position as one of the powerful rulers of all time, being Emperor of an Empire that ruled most of the known world. The famed Italian traveler Marco Polo described Kublai as the“greatest lord there will ever be”. ''

http://www.allempires.com/empires/mongol/mongol2.htm



Not to mention that many parts which appear on the map as part of the empire were merely vassal states.This is the principle of almost every empire that have existed. These vassal states were under mongol rule and administration.




It wasn't all on one continent. Does it mean that it has no land? Tell me, retard, which continents have land and which do not? Just curiousity.



Weakly populated like India perhaps? 80% of the territories of the British empire were Canada, Australia, and the african colonies -poorly populated, uncivilized areas. And I mentioned India before as the exception (see previous posts). I've never said 'all' I said 'most'. Check the difference in dictionary.


Moron.Indeed you are a moron. Valid point.


Or heavily populated like Siberia and Central Asia.It was mentioned before that the most advanced and civilized states (China, Islamic states) were conquered and ruled by the mongols.


The Ilkhanate, the Golden Horde, Chaghatai Khanate weren't integral parts of the empire like you imagine.ignorance i.e. bs. Better learn before type.





Triglodyte Del Manure
Imbecile Del Malodore
Prostituto Del Mongole
Turd Del Mule

Wow, I see you're pretty 'bright', for a retarded, 26 years old, internet loser (6000+ posts).

yamato
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 03:43 AM
actually, the mongol was pretty loosely governed, all the khan ever did was to send the golden horde to raid/pillage/plunder a vassal state when it didn't pay a annual tribute.