What made Mongolia more successful than any empire before England?

What made Mongolia more successful than any empire before England?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IMO the 7th century sandBlack folk were more sucessful as they conquered far more relevant empires (Egypt, all the mesopotamia, Persian, all north africa and Hispania, most Caucaus and parts of India, then extended to Indonesia through water after some centuries).

    Short answer: the decline of Song and infighting in Persia hugely helped them to invade those empires. Afterward they simply were using their new /slaves/ subordinates to expand even more. Most of their territory was almost unpopulated to begin with and cavalry was the center of their culture that was also the best thing to wage war during the middle ages.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Which dynasty came after the Yuan? Was it the Ming?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They beat the same empires basically, minus Egypt. And the Jin were the strongest nation on earth at the time.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They're remembered in the same vein as the black plagues is remembered.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what does this mean? the Mongols had a vibrant culture and they brought civilization and order to places like early Russia

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Mongols had a vibrant culture and they brought civilization and order
        they were barbaric savages who knew nothing other than raping and pillaging.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >barbaric savages who knew nothing other than raping and pillaging.
          >thinks rape isn't an art form
          >doesn't understand the economic value of pillaging
          pleb

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Mongols had a vibrant culture and they brought civilization and order to places like early Russia
        kek, I see what you did there

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russia actually may never have existed if the Mongols didn't invade. The Rus would likely be much like the Mongols themselves, fragmented squabbling tribes and city-states all constantly fighting each other and being pushed around by the Byzantines. Poland would be the center of power in Eastern Europe without a Mongol army to raze it to the ground, and Hungary would be about as powerful as France was without the Mongols killing 60% of the population.
        Oh, and the Mongols also sent the Balkans back to the Stone Age, so that's part of why they're like that now. If they hadn't, Bulgaria probably would've taken over and been a similarly powerful, influential state in it's own right. Like the Bulgarians almost conquered the Latin Empire in Constantinople.
        A lot of western history changes without Genghis.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't very successful. They got their asses kicked in short order by everyone aside from China, and some slavs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Same as roman empire, who got taken over again and again and basically a new country with same name but different culture formed every time

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >by everyone aside from China
      >formed largest land empire of all time
      >by getting their asses kicked
      Stop doing whippits, the brain damage is permanent you fricking moron. You seriously don't have any more spare brain cells to lose, it's the last one.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Late stage contrarianism. You really hate to see it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dudes in greece are studying the stars and making statues of white marble. dudes in China are building a wall to keep the aliens out. the israelites are tired of building the pyramids and had to leave because they fricked up the ecosystem.
      Genghis khan came sweeping in like the bible sure, but he didn't last.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Genghis Khan seized the opportunity.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >England
    >successful
    Bongolan please
    You’re literally poorer than Italians and Yugos and have zero military power
    It’s like North Koreans proclaiming themselves a superpower

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We're talking about history. Yes the bongs fell off hard, we're aware.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This isn’t a history board and their performance has always been very mid. Case in point a hundred thousand strong army in Singapore being defeated by much smaller forces from Japan and the UK pacific fleet being annihilated and retreating to Africa.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You are cherry picking examples right at the end of an empire which lasted 300 years. Whilst simultaneously showing minimal knowledge of the events you are describing.

          >their performance has always been very mid.

          Except from when it wasn't. They were essentially untouchable during the age of sail. Their army, although small, generally performed well. Sometimes exceptionally well.

          Yes it couldn't 1v1 it's biggest competitors on land, but it was never a land power.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Their army, although small, generally performed well. Sometimes exceptionally well.
            It only performed good against savages.
            Britain invaded France and lost to a garrison during the Napoleonic Wars.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No, the British Army was, man for man, the best in the world. From the 1700s all the way up to WWII

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is actually true for during the late 1700s to early 1800s, but by the time of WW1 man-for-man they were completely mogged by the Germans let alone the US...by the time of WW2 the Brits were arguably as bad as France or Italy...modern era there are likely 30+ third world nations that realistically have better quality per soldier than the Brits today

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                might want to read up on the retreat from Mons friendo. Specifically small numbers of volunteer/career British troops slowing larger numbers of German troops with successful rearguard actions like the Battle of Mons, Battle of Nonne Boshen or Battle of Néry are (along with the Belgique BVLLs doing the same thing) the only reason the french army was able to regroup and counter attack at the Marne.

                The German army in WW1 was never a "crack force" with focus on each man being highly trainered like the all volunteer pre-war British army (or the modern conception of a soldier's role). Some parts of US forces like the USMC certainly were but they weren't even part of the war for another 4 years when the conditions were completely different so any comparison is fairly pointless unless you consider bolivian banana farmers as an equal foe to the Prussian Guard.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lol, without the US involved a few thousand Germans would have easily conquered the British Isles just like they did throughout history over and over again

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                oh I assumed you were arguing in good faith not that you were a mentally ill slovakian expat who thinks he's cyrus the great.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that was your mistake, yes

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          seething poojeet spotted

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In the context of a discusion about the great and powerful Mongolian empire it should be clear to everyone with two braincells to rub together that the topic at hand is not the here and now.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's asking way too much of bongophobes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >England
      Thirdie tell.
      There was no English empire, unless if you count the Angevin empire which really could be considered more French than English.
      There was a BRITISH Empire, as the English crown does not exist and has not existed since 1707.

      You're dumb if you think a Brit made this thread for the reasons given above.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There was a BRITISH Empire, as the English crown does not exist and has not existed since 1707.
        This is both truth and cope at the same time. We all know who was running the show of that protestant nation. I'll give you a hint, it's the same country that colonized Ireland and conquered Wales.
        >b-b-but muh British
        If you're a lowlander, I'll somewhat concede this since the lowland Scots made such massive contributions to fighting for Britain against the Jacobites, made massive contributions to the enlightenment in Britain (arguably hard-carried the rest of the soggy island tbh), and played a massive role in politics during the 19th century. The Stewarts also paved the way for formal union with their personal union. If you're a highlander you can get bent. You have no part of the Empire save suffering defeats at the hands of better men and now milking welfarebux from the south.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >We all know who was running the show of that protestant nation. I'll give you a hint, it's the same country that colonized Ireland and conquered Wales.
          I can agree. I'm more annoyed at the way that people act like the British Empire was an Anglo ego project, when the Scots were some of the biggest promoters and beneficiaries of colonial holdings and the trade therein. Glasgow didn't grow to be such a big city from it's own sweat alone; it took a lot of inputs from the colonies.
          There's this fluffy version of British history that's popular among Euros (and increasingly others) nowadays that everything they dislike about the UK was due to the English and anything that was good was due to the precious Scots who just wanted to be left alone and were forced into everything by those English brutes :'( [Please ignore that time the Scots fricked themselves over with a disastrous attempt at colonialism]. These people have absolutely no regard for the delineations within the Scots or the political realities that made the formal union mutually beneficial.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >UK mentioned
      >Instant seething
      Ok turd

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Horses, organization, and xenophillia. Mongolians were rich in horses and even if they were smaller than European Chargers the fact that every family would have one or two horses meant Mongolians had a lot of practical wealth. Once Temujin finally got them to stop beating themselves up the Mongol Empire was an impossibly mobile army full of experienced warriors.

    This is where the Organization comes in. The now Ghengis Khan then put forth a number of reforms that made the army more disciplined and divided the loot up more fairly. No more leaving the battle to secure the best loot, you could now assign detactments to looting and still get a share of the treasure. The impossibly mobile army was now flexible and disciplined enough to perform complex maneuvers and subtle plots.

    This is when the Xenophillia comes in. The Mongols easily seized the trans-asiatic trade lanes and basically let anybody use it so long as they paid their tariffs. They even let their client kingdoms to continue as they were so long as they still paid a tribute to the Mongols and didn't cause too much trouble. This even meant adopting foreigners into their ranks, including Chinese engineers. With those engineers, the Mongols could now break through fortifications and it was only the wet and disease rich climates of the Tropics that stopped them.

    And then Temujin's grandsons couldn't get along and the entire empire shattered in 4 generations. Take note, this is what happens when you neglect Civics research.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This is when the Xenophillia comes in. The Mongols easily seized the trans-asiatic trade lanes and basically let anybody use it so long as they paid their tariffs. They even let their client kingdoms to continue as they were so long as they still paid a tribute to the Mongols and didn't cause too much trouble. This even meant adopting foreigners into their ranks, including Chinese engineers. With those engineers, the Mongols could now break through fortifications and it was only the wet and disease rich climates of the Tropics that stopped them.

      This is actually how any empire became an empire. Persians under Cyrus the Great and his reforms allowing freedom of religion, Rome with Pax Romana, Autria-Hungary with plenty of different cultures, China with mognols, chinese, vietnamese, koreans and turks. Ottomans who allowed non muslims in but forced djizya whihc was lower taxation than in their native lands. And so on. Even now USA for every country that is cooperating with them forces us to recognize their state as higher than ours. If you want to get a work in western sphere of influence they always ask you if you are US resident - because it is pax americana and tribute we pay them by agreeing to their trade laws.
      And this is what Russian mongoloids cannot reconstruct. Because they are too stupid to understand that all these former soviet states would gladly pay them some tribute and live their lives. But it is not enough for these morons and they want total control.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        True. Acceptance and Tolerance brings in the talent and quells local rebellion.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can't implement civil service when you don't have a central government. All warlord states collapse. Zero historical exceptions.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No frame delay on their unique unit's attack made them super OP and easy to micro

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      didn't the """Definitive""" version nerf them by adding frame delay?
      ruined

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That was in the HD edition
        They also increased his reload speed later on
        But this is all nothing compared to what happened to AOE3

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But this is all nothing compared to what happened to AOE3
          Yeah but AOE3 was fricked balance-wise to begin with so there were like maybe 50 people playing it competitively before the DE came out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine playing anything after AOE2.

            AOM, AOE3 are just bad.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You play AoM specifically BECAUSE it's a completely unbalanced shitshow, that's half the fun. As long as everyone agrees to not play Atlanteans
              >what if we had Greek focus on heroes and infantry, but BETTER
              >what if we had egyptian ability to passively produce favor, but BETTER
              >what if we had the Norse Ragnarok power, but BETTER
              >hell, what if we just had better god powers in general
              >and better economy, with gatherers that didn't need dropoff points

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made mongolia more successful...

    JVRCHEN BVLLS

    Also probably persian and chinese siege engineers.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It wasn't...?

    They had some impressive short term conquests, to be sure. I assume "most successful," is coming from "had the most land." But this is a totally arbitrary way to judge success. Is holding extremely loose control over vast spaces of sparsely inhabited land really what defines success? Why not include control over the seas as well? Certainly some empires exercised closer control over parts of the ocean than the Mongols did over far flung Steppe regions, and those areas were more economically important to boot. So if painting areas of the globe is what matters, then we might as well include the seas and bump some other nations up.

    Ancient Persia might take the cake for highest share of global wealth and population. The Greeks had their run at controlling that same area and even more on top of it, but like the Mongols it was a weak sort of control that fell apart quickly. The Romans have a far better claim for breadth and duration. Even the Qin or the Middle Kingdom in Egypt might have a better claim due to actually having robust stability.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > we ruled the seas
      > well, yeah there was nobody else in the seas, but still!
      Bongland sucks donkey balls. Killing tribal natives with rifles and claiming their land was trivial at the time. Spain was first and way better at it too.
      Genghis Khan was UNMATCHED as a conqueror. Still is to this day. His secret? Horses. Bows. The friends he made along the way. Take a city, some folk resisted hard, he smiled and joined them in his army. A magnificent bastard.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >> we ruled the seas
        >> well, yeah there was nobody else in the seas, but still!

        NTA talking shit about the Mongols but you are legit room temp IQ if you think controlling the seas isn't both difficult and massively. It lets you control all global trade and become the richest nation on earth. There's a reason chinks and thirdies covet blue water navies.

        During the height of the Royal Navy just the words "I am a British flagged ship" provided more security than 3 battlecruisers. It is so now with US shipping.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >massively

          massively rewarding

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your missiles can’t even take off and Slovenia and Italy have a higher income than you.
          >controlling the seas
          Japan kicked your asses and you barely beat Italy. You’re the most mid naval power

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Japan kicked your asses

            Real question is why are you so asshurt at Britain 24/7? I thought you were a Slovakian shahzada with pure iranian genetics? جرا گریان هستی؟

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Leftists will insist that its the wealthiest fault
            >not the millions of no skill migrants that have arrived and pushed prices for housing though the roof while ruining neighbourhoods and clogging public services
            >right wingers won't blame the wealthy for being a driving force behind encouraging cheap foreign labour since they are easier to exploit and don't complain
            I fricking hate this country. I'm not really racist, but the number of immigrants has just gotten ridiculous in my small town.
            They all look miserable as well, working shitty jobs for shitty pay and living in the shittiest slumlord housing.
            I

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Genghis Khan was UNMATCHED as a conqueror

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Take a city, some folk resisted hard
        The he killed every living organism bigger than a mushroom in that city.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If it works, it works.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The redpilled actual reasons:

    1. Higher iq on average leading to implementation of weaponry and tactics that the monke level people during that time period simply could not grasp

    2. Substantially physically stronger and more durability on average, this goes largely glossed over but all firsthand accounts indicate they were literally physical machines + trained in close combat/weapons again unmatched by any others during that time period

    3. Battle morale unmatched for their time period where they routinely conquered adversaries that greatly outnumbered them, 99%+ of all conflicts Mongols engaged in they were massively outnumbered

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Substantially physically stronger and more durability on average
      Can confirm as a Central Asian, some people are built different here, basically like dwarves, in no small part due to the meat and dairy diet.
      You see a lot of strongfat guys here that are actually built like a brick shithouse, what they call an absolute unit. You look at the guy and you can just tell he can frick shit up, it's actually scary.
      The more dangerous varieties are non-fat ones because they can surprise you. A little fat, maybe, but otherwise a seemingly normal and short guy wearing some shitty black jacket, really nothing special. Due to Asian neoteny, he's got a round, baby-like face, not too intimidating. Then things escalate and he just knocks out a guy like it's nothing.
      You know how in Europe or whatever, hobbies consist of playing instruments, a sport of some kind, maybe a combat sport, but normalgays are mostly just slobs rotting in front of a screen.
      Here, TOO MANY people are into combat sports, mostly boxing, the sheer amount is actually inspiring if not scary. You really do not want to get on anyone's bad side.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And I don't know about the IQ part lmao
        Maybe in the middle ages
        There was something about modern mongols specifically having like 130 IQ or some shit, but idk

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They have higher T. There are studies. Higher T and lower digit ratios (higher prenatal exposure to T). This is true when comparing to Russians, as well. What allowed Russians to win in the 19th and early 20th century was organization, logistics, technology, and foreign officers. The Basmachi were not rail or aerospace engineers. Late muskets of the various Khanates did not compare to Russian equipment of the time. Simple as. Mano a mano? Different story re: dominance.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tell us more Anonistani. How beautiful are the women from your country? Are they also stronk?
        I've always seen the Steppe as a mysteriously enthralling part of the Earth. It feels like it's so distant when compared to other countries due to it being landlocked, but so rich in culture and history as well

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >How beautiful are the women from your country?
          Just like anywhere else, some are beautiful, some aren't. On average, pretty good. I like the Italian/med-looking ones. Fat women are pretty strong, like fat negresses. My aunts are like that. Some are just fat fricks, though.
          It's true, there's captivating beauty in the steppes, the wastelands, lush, verdant greenery, mountains and hills, rivers, pink, red, violet fields of flowers. The steppes remain a special place for my people, constant yet ever-changing, empty, but teeming with life, dangerous and hostile, yet calm. It's so quiet on the plains and the hills, tranquil and solitary. There are moments when you won't hear a single sound, no birds, no animals, no wind, you're one with nature. Wild, untamable beauty. No trace of anything technogenic, aside from the occasional ancient stone carvings and statues. And the air... And then you're hit by this warm, enveloping wind if you're in the warmer regions, or it's summer. We've abandoned the nomadic life, however.

          They have higher T. There are studies. Higher T and lower digit ratios (higher prenatal exposure to T). This is true when comparing to Russians, as well. What allowed Russians to win in the 19th and early 20th century was organization, logistics, technology, and foreign officers. The Basmachi were not rail or aerospace engineers. Late muskets of the various Khanates did not compare to Russian equipment of the time. Simple as. Mano a mano? Different story re: dominance.

          Pretty much, nomads couldn't compete with technology.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lots of empty steppe

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the English were not as successful. For example, they did not build pyramids of skulls in India nor did they sack Delhi killing perhaps a million people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But I thought Churchill personally stole food from the mouths of 6 million bengalis?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He was very fat, yes.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Weaponized rape + using plague bodies as projectiles.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It seems my superiority has led to some controversy

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By being the embodiment of the will of the Blue Heaven.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fact.
      that's why after converting to various religious they started flopping and failing

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >+100% army movement speed on steppe
    >-80% supply usage on steppe
    >steals enemy civ population bonuses constantly
    Massively overpowered for as long as horse archers stay relevant through the mid game. If you’re lucky and get good alcohol production going on time, they’ll mostly kill themselves though, so only noobs who neglect their stills get bodied these days.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They had a standing army that was trained in horse riding warfare and had a decent chain of command. The only way to beat them is to build up defenses or have terrain not suited for horse mobile warfare.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The will of Tengri

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Horse archers on top of being nomadic. The opposing army can't just march in and attack your capital if it's on legs. That's what led to the Mongols being allowed to build power for so long with China only occasionally trying to disrupt their attempts at unification. The other thing that China had and still has going against it is that it's easy to march across. Being a big and easily assailted has been their problem since 200AD, which really kickstarted Ghengis' expansion. If they had started by facing European hills and castles terrain, the invasion would have likely sputtered out from the get go

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mongols sitting in the wasteland building power levels up over the course of generations
      moron. The mongrels were few in number and split between many tribes. Genghis got super lucky with his wife being of noble birth and his mentor clan leader dude doing a ton of the b***hwork in conquering other tribes before genghis warred with him. Otherwise he would never have left the steppe and spent his life tard wrangling horsefrickers.
      The real reason the mongols did so well at first was the weather. IIRC it was rainy and warm which made all the grass grow and shiet

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the scythian thots again
        I wonder If the /k/ommando has gotten the balls to take the thot to a date.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          She said yes bros...what do i do now?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            quit while you're ahead, become an hero.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the mongols were radically better at logistics and operations than any other contemporary power. A Mongol army could move about 8x as far in a day as any other pre rail army, 2x if compared to an all cavalry force, but outside of the
        mongols those were rare and limited in capacity for operational sustainment. The only reason they didn't conquer the world sooner was because they were more interested in fighting each other than everyone else.

        Genghis Khan got lucky, but people get lucky all the time, he was one of the few people to really capitalize on every lucky thing that happened in his life. He leveraged the tiny advantage of a good marriage into a radical unification and restructuring of mongol society to create a war machine that conquered most of the known world.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My favorite law he codified was wearing clothes until they wore out. He saw the issue of steppenigs abandoning their culture for settled cucks

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >genoicde
    >empire of wastelands
    >no lasting cultural impact
    yeah, sounds like the British and the Mongols belong to each other.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Mongolia more successful than any empire before England?
    huge temujin fan but they werent
    they were just nomadic vandals with a lot more room to work with
    didnt really do much beyond conquer from point A to point B and they never consolidated gains

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Horse archers were OP before the modern era.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > frickin' England
    > half british aristocracy has cancer
    > we wuz empire once!
    rifles vs spears = success, huh?
    How long did Pax Britanica last? Less than 100 years? Thanks to... russians of all people, who kicked Napoleon in the frozen nuts.
    Year of our lord 2024. Mongolia population 3,3 million. Bongs still have inferiority complex to based Genghis Khan. kek.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mongolia didn't really build an empire, they took over the Chinese empire, but outside of that they just conquered some dusty shit holes, then splintered, they were the best at kicking the shit out of everyone they met though. The British empire ushered in the modern world through the industrial and agricultural revolutions, spread civilization to every corner of the globe, and invented entirely new nations.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What did the mongol empire leave behind besides ruins? Nothing
    What did they achieve besides destruction, murder and, rape? Nothing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Mongols are probably responsible for helping spreading dumplings/pierogi all over Central Asian and Eastern Europe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Belittling destruction, murder and rape as achievements
      Where do you think we are?

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is a lot to be said of the average soldier enjoying thier life.
    The mongol army were mainly light horsemen from a culture rich in livestock. Everyone had horses.
    Most traveled by horse, not just the elite and cavalry like most other armies. They had tons of meat.
    Life consisted of riding horses in beautiful landscapes, eating steaks and roasts, and then looting other societies for alcohol, women, and cool loot.
    It was the best position in society.
    Compare that with most armies that marched and carried gear by foot, ate meager rations of garbage, fought for some aritocratic whims not personal enrichment and plunder, and looked forward to leaving the army as soon as possible and maybe having something to show for it, though often not.

    The mongol soldier lifestyle was so enjoyable nobody wanted to be doctors, engineers, or anything else that advanced thier people.
    It eventually lead to society committing so much of its population to unending war and dying off without having established much over the vast territory. Soldiering was just so good nobody wanted to do anything else.

    Everyone focuses on tactics or technological advantages. But the mongols didn't have that, a European castle and knights had better technology.
    But the mongol loved his life as a soldier.
    Very few other common soldiers did.
    This meant they would raid until thier population collapsed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thinking about it, this is the same reason the native americans lived a life of hunting endless buffalo, riding on horses europeans brought hundreds of years earlier, raiding others for alcohol, women and plunder, and refused to give it up.

      They enjoyed it so much as a lifestyle thier food had to be killed and everyone forcefully moved to reservations. They simply would never integrate into society because they preferred thier way of life, just as most european pagan societies did before conquest by empires.
      Even young european boys captured and raised by natives would escape and go back to it any chance they got.
      It was simply more enjoyable than being a tax paying wage slave supporting an empire through toil.
      Everyone eventually is conquered and worked on behalf of an empire and its elites though.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They came into prominence around the time that their neighbors coincidentally were at historical points of weakness which made them unable to resist a steppeBlack person invasion.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Shower your supporters in wealth and influence
    >Genocide your enemies over the most petty shit
    Basic leadership, eventually people will realize that living it rich under your subjugation is probably prefferable over an extinction event localized entirely in their capital city
    Reminder that the Mongols were responsible for the alledged depopulation of Persia at the time, we're talking 90% of the population dead from war and famine

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Reminder that the Mongols were responsible for the alledged depopulation of Persia at the time, we're talking 90% of the population dead from war and famine
      Forgot to mention, all this over:
      >A handful of dead mongol merchants
      >A dead mongol ambassador sent to Persia to adress the aforementioned dead merchants
      >Two mongol envoys who were sent back to Genghis with their mustaches and beards cut off

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >depopulate 90% of persia
      >still end up speaking farsi and having persianate culture

      I like that Persia put so many points into administration and governance that anyone who invades just animorphs into an Iranian.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were white

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Mongolia more successful than any empire before England?
    Two things, strategy and their style of governance.
    For strategy, they fought to their strengths, using speed in the open terrain to overwhelm enemies who had mostly only experienced the occasional raid or small skirmish, and laying siege to anything that couldn't be overrun.
    For governance, they basically told people "we own you, and you pay X every few months to us" then appointed local leaders to run things while they went out raiding other places, which lead to things running pretty smoothly.
    This all fell apart when they pushed further west, and ran into a European continent that was far more familiar with waging war, and in turn kicked them back to the east.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > European continent that was far more familiar with waging war
      The great wall made China weaker.

      The same for Roman Europe and its 'walls' (northern England, Germanic Limes, Danube Limes, etc). They weren't robust enough if a epidemic/civil war weakened the borders.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > European continent that was far more familiar with waging war
      The great wall made China weaker.

      The same for Roman Europe and its 'walls' (northern England, Germanic Limes, Danube Limes, etc). They weren't robust enough if a epidemic/civil war weakened the borders.

      Europe got its shit pushed in by the Mongols in every battle. They were less organized, less disciplined, less united politically. And they were absolutely not more experienced than the Mongols in waging war, what the frick are you talking about? They had levels of discipline and organization that Europe would not truly see until the 16th century.
      Only the Mamluks, Vietnamese, Japanese, and maybe the Dehli sultanate can boast of beating the Mongols in a fair fight.
      The Khan died so the Mongols had to frick off back to Mongolia. That is the only reason Europe (at the very least to the Black Forest and the Alps) was not Mongol’d.
      The Horde was virtually undefeated on the battlefield. It fortunately disintegrated and couldn’t ever threaten Europe again before gunpowder arrived in the 14th century.

      European were GOATs from then on out, but the Mongols could have made it at least to Germany and probably further if the went through Italy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > Only the Mamluks, Vietnamese, Japanese, and maybe the Dehli sultanate can boast of beating the Mongols in a fair fight.

        Lol all of the above would have been mogged by contemporary euros and only survived the mongols due to zerglike disproportionate numbers… actual accounts of mongols versus all of the above even if the mongols were only outnumbered 3:1, typically it was a lot more, they completely beat the frick out of all of these clowns to include euros…it was the non-actual combat factors that gave adversaries any chance

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This, but also a key point is that the Mongols couldn’t sustain their usual cavalry focused army into Europe since there just wasn’t enough grassland or steppe for grazing an army’s worth of horses except for Hungary, which is why Hungary got absolute raped into the ground while most of the rest of Europe just got hit by drive bys. To continue, they’d have had to pull some of their wolololo strats like they did in China by using Chinese siege engineers, and radically shifted their tactics to go beyond Hungary, at which point it probably also becomes a lot more of an even fight.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even if they had some way to supply their force inside mainland Europe, they'd get BTFO as they had no castles/fortifications of their own and the swamps and mountainous terrain massively hinders movement.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Brits and Mongols are people of the harsh north. Winter creates high trust, low time preference, mentally adaptable, physically capable, eugenic societies. Simple as.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So what about places where it's perpetually summer?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh, you mean Black folk?

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They have fashion.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ever wondered how an impoverished people on marginal land would do if you gave them Alexander, Caesar, Cyrus, Hannibal and Pompeius, and they were all working together for a common goal with no jealousy betrayals or infights due to each military and political genius wanting to be at the top?
    Genghis and his four dogs of war did exactly that.
    The loyalty Genghis inspired in people who were his equal on the battlefield and who could each have gone on to form their own little steppe empire is insane and without precedent.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Test

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >get btfo by turks
    >get btfo by viets
    >get btfo by japs
    >get btfo by europeans
    >get btfo by pajeets
    Very impressive indeed.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wy horte hav benis :DDDDD 4 leg?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >sees benis everywhere
        deebly goncerned

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *