> Genghis Khan's empire was the greatest of all time!

what are you even trying to argue?

So is most of Russia, Canada, the US,China, Brazil and following the list down anything bigger than a pea.

>>598076
Reinforcing European ethnocentrism by denying the significance of noneuropean conquest.

>>598063
Empty land masses aside; a better point worth raising is the longevity of their empire and the influences they had.

Most of it is negative, brutal, and short-lived, before fracturing.

Contrast that to other empires that collapsed quickly, like the Macedonians, who had a serious positive cultural influence in most places they conquered, or to say the British, who had a slightly larger overall landmass, and did horrible deeds abroad, but contributed one of the greatest scientific contributions to the world.

The Mongolian empire can be summarized as a flash in the pan in terms of military might, and little else.

>>598117
People probably saw the mongols as the one true big empire not 100 years before they collapsed. We don't know how much of the British influence will survive.

At least in the old world. Euros fucked up this place forever desu.

The Mongols fought the Teutonic knights and the Samurai at the same time, without either one knowing the other even existed.

Your argument is tremendously invalid.

>>598127
>before
I meant after

File: 3fab5a8e12ac729bc6ea719f62b2e231.png (17KB, 1537x74px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1537x74px

>>598063
What about the population it owned?

>>598127
That isn't unique to the Mongols, it can be said of many groups, and its besides the point... which admittedly, could have been made more clearer.

The British are among the highest civilization contributors globally, including the industrial revolution, and the Mongols never put forward anything in their imperial period that could rival it. The British empire was also technically larger in 1919 than the Mongol empire was at its peak.

I'm not denying that the British influence had its massive downsides, but the Mongol empire pretty much can be characterized that way.

>>598063
They controlled china and most of the middle-east and eastern europe and bridged contact between two mostly isolated parts of the continent. Yes the steppe is a wasteland, but you're ignoring the fact that they changed the course of civilization.

>>598138
if you account for world population isn't Achaemenid Persia larger?

>>598131
Jesus fucking christ is everone on this board a god damn retard? You didn't refute their argument at all!

>>598117
>Most of it is negative, brutal, and short-lived
What a stupid post.

>>598219
Ebin rebuttal xDD

>>598063
Premodern empires never actually controlled all the territory shown on modern maps.

>>598146
>Mongols didn't invent the industrial revolution so everything they did was bad

>>598146

see >>598159

Both the British and the Mongols changed history forever and had lasting impact in the regions they interacted with. We know for a fact how much of Mongol influence survived to this day, but it's still way too early to know if british influence will be as deep or as persistent

>the industrial revolution
It is indeed amazing how much the world changed with that, but you cannot downplay the Mongol with only that. And the technological revolution as a whol had plenty of contributors aswell.

>>598239
>everything
Cute strawman.

>>598249
>Both the British and the Mongols changed history forever and had lasting impact in the regions they interacted with. We know for a fact how much of Mongol influence survived to this day, but it's still way too early to know if british influence will be as deep or as persistent
Are you seriously trying to make an equivalency here on either empires positive output?

Not even compatible, and yes, enough time has passed that we can indeed assess the British contribution, whether good or bad, on the world at large.

>>598259
>compatible
comparable*

>>598076
he's trying to argue that other people are autists and totally not himself guys

>>598228
I'm sorry you're literally retarded and can't understand why something so patently stupid is worth derision. Calling the Mongol Empire "short-lived" is on its own hilarious, but to sweep the history of it as "negative" and "brutal" reveals a highly uncritical perspective. What about the Mongols creating and presiding over a highly unprecedented and functional meritocratic, secular government? What about the fact that the Mongols were known for diplomacy and peaceful, mutually beneficial relations of trade as well as being brutal warriors?

>>598270
>the Mongol empire was not short-lived
>the Mongols were never brutal or overall a negative influence
>saying so is retarded, because I say so
>there trivial, non-sequitur examples somehow negative the destruction of Baghdad, mass rapes, leveling whole civilizations to rubble, etc...
Try to leave the projections at the door before making a reply.

>the Mongol empire was not short-lived
>the Mongols were never brutal or overall a negative influence
>saying so is retarded, because I say so
>these trivial, non-sequitur examples somehow negate the destruction of Baghdad, mass rapes, leveling whole civilizations to rubble, etc...
Try to leave the projections at the door before making a reply.

>>598283
Meant for >>598270

>>598063
>> The Spanish empire was the greatest of all time!
>> It was larger than any other empire ever!
What do autistic fucks like this not understand? Do they not realize that most of the Americas were unpopulated, barren wastelands that were essentially inhospitable?

>>598063

Nice try pleb, but the mongols controlled china, the most heavily populated country in the world in their time, which other european empires controlled that much people prior to the 17th or 18th centuries?

>ib4 the roman empire

>>598270
It's time for you to stop watching that shitty Crash Course channel.

>The British Empire was the greatest of all time
>It was larger than any other empire ever.
What do aut-

oh wait it was.

>>598063

>It was larger than any other empire ever
>implying

t. Brit

It was shit, their "empire" crumbled 5 seconds after Genghis Khan died.

And for that matter Alexander's empire was shit too.

Maintaining >>> conquering

>>599472

You are wrong, unlike with the Macedon Empire two other khans had full control over all the territories they had conquered before. - those were Ogedei and Möngke.

For example the siege of Baghdad was an united effort, people from all over the mongol empire were recruited for this, such things did not happen in the Macedon Empire after alexanders death.

>Maintaining >>> conquering
Enjoy your mediocrity then.

>>598164
Everything Achaemenid Persia had hold -besides egypt and parts of Asia Minor- was conquered by the mongols.

>>599472
Genghis Khan did not even conquer China (or even the jurchen controlled northern part of China) or Mesopotamia or southeastern asia or Korea.
Hell, even the famous mongol invasions of eastern europe happened after his death.

>>599497
>mediocrity
>1000 years of stability is worse than 30 years of dominance

Hey guys let's conquer vast area of FUCKING NOTHING and then lose even that because we're stupid fucks who can't rule anything without constant infighting. Greatest empire ever.

In fact it wasn't even an empire, it was a mafia level racket. Fuck shit up, hammer the locals with ridiculous taxes, fuck shit up again if they object. Don't build or contribute anything ever unless you somehow assimilate into local culture and customs like it was in China. Fuck the Mongols.

>>599526
>1000 years of stability
>Macedon Empire
In what kind of parallel world are you living?

>>599540
Who's talking about Macedon you shit cunt?

>>599526
It's more so the fact that the Mongols bit off more than they could chew. Their empire was so vast that they didn't have the necessary communications technology to properly manage it all. Hence the gradual alienation and autonomy of the western khanates from the emperor in the east, which especially sped up after the civil war between Kublai and Ariq Böke.

>>599526
>FUCKING NOTHING

China says hello, more pop then any medieval european country at the time of the mongols.

>>599515

He did most of the work for conquering the Jin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Huan'erzui
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhongdu

>>599571
They still controlled their largest cities at the point of Genghis death.
Sure, they lost their capital, but Zhongdu was neither the largest nor the most important city. It was just chosen, because it was the closest to the Jurchen homeland of manchuria and because Kaifeng or Luoyang were too close to the Southern Song
(you are right though, that the main northern chinese armies and their main defense lines were brought down by Genghis.)

File: empires and population.png (117KB, 1680x740px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1680x740px

>British "Empire"

>>599501
yes but IIRC Achaemenid Persia controlled like 45% of the world's population compared to the Mongols 25% so controlling just for population doesn't make the Mongols look *that* big

>>598117
>like the Macedonians, who had a serious positive cultural influence in most places they conquered
Sure thing mate, just ask any Iranian.
>or to say the British,
just ask anyone, period.

File: Achaemenid_Empire_(flat_map).svg.png (47KB, 672x442px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 672x442px

>>599645
49% of the world's population lived in here

macabre

File: 1452312517275.png (110KB, 382x310px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 382x310px

>>599675
>comparing an ancient empire which had mesopotamia, Egypt, and Anatolia under its control to an empire in the 13th century in terms of percentage of world population controlled.

>>599675
Well it had the nile, mesopotamia and the Indus.
These were most of the population centers back then. The other half was living mostly on the ganges and yangtse.

>>598131
that sounds lie something out of EU4 also it was the Mongols Korean vassals who launched an invasion of japan and got wiped out by a storm

>>599807
>commenting on something you obviously know nothing about
Why?

>>599828
Remember where you are

The thing that made Genghis Khan less great than Caesar, Napoleon or Alexander is not that he conquered steppes, he made a great empire with tons of people and civilizations.
The thing that made his accomplishment lesser is that there were no great men, no adversaries of any real gumption for him to prove himself against. it was a world tired and worn out from the dust of much greater empires.
Also he isn't white

>>598102
It's very significant population and wealth wise but the actual size is kind of irrelevant except when looked at from a map since most of it was desert and mountains