How can you explain the Mongol Empire in any way other then great

>>1657211
they smoked a bunch of dope and conquered the world for it, looking for and smoking the fuck out of different strains. split the muslim world in two at 1258

>>1657211
>genghis khan is the only reason for the mongols success
it seems that you don't know the quality of their generals

>>1657211
You don't understand great man theory

They were another bunch of steppeniggers that copied Parthian battle tactics. See also: Huns, Turks.

File: 1466281774055.jpg (15KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x400px

>>1657211
Horse + Archers = Weapons of Mass Destruction

It was a Jews plot to destroy Islam and Europe.

Literally the only thing Genghis did that no other steppe group did before was a peaceful succession onto another great leader.

Pretty much everything outside northern china that Genghis 'conquered' had to be reconquered and then have an administration by Ogedei.

Without Ogedei Genghis would be one of the dozen steppe leaders that no one outside of chinese specialists knows about.

>>1658010
>it seems that you don't know the quality of their generals
That still supports his point.

In any case:
>>1657211
Many factors gave rise to their dominance other than Great Men, including the utter fucknuggetry of the Chinese and the natural ability of horse nomads to take advantage of said fucknuggetry. Similar to Alexander, the Big Empire the Mongols took on was falling to pieces in any case, and their soldiery just happened to be among the best to take advantage of this (bearing in mind they made ample use of conventional auxiliaries). Their strategy of being batshit crazy genocidal maniacs also helped immensely.

This is not to say that Chingiz or his generals were not able in their own right; of course they were. But they weren't THAT able. Just able enough to take advantage of their situation.

>>1657211
this isn't hard. maybe if you retards would read a book on the matter written by chinese rather than white men relying on translated secondary sources.

1. force multiplier of horses
2. taking advantage of oriental despotism and revolt
3. no need for logistics
4. peaceful succession, leaving administrations intact
5. genocide of barbaric peoples
5. meritocracy

literally this simple. none of them are "small" tasks that should be belittled. but it's not a question we should still be asking. it's obvious.

>>1659864
fuck off chang

>>1658365
no one expects the tengri horde

>>1659868
it's true though. very few white authors can read primary documents in chinese. they shouldn't even be allowed to publish. it's pathetic.

it would be like if you read a bunch of chinese authors about hte roman empire but the chinese authors spoke passable english and zero latin.

it's basically impossible for a westerner to read primary documents in chinese to 1/10th the extent that chinese authors do.

>>1659883
you're basically making fun of us for not being chinese. again, fuck off, chang.

>>1659975
no, I'm saying historians should be able to read large amounts of primary documents. which most non-chinese cannot do.

I would also discard works about rome that weren't written by someone who could speak latin.

plenty of chinese authors have been translated. if you choose poor secondary sources that's your problem, buddy

>>1659975
>making a valid point is making fun of white people
Is this what the /pol/ version of an SJW looks like?

>>1660039
Maybe. I've only been on this board for about 20 minutes now and I already feel more retarded than before. People defending nelson mandela, defending socialism, etc...

>>1660069
>defending socialism
Meh get used to it. /his/ defends Stalin like /pol/ defends Hitler

>>1657211
>Mongols were one of the weakest horse nomads. They were relatively few in numbers and had few resources, as most of their land isn't even steppes but mountains and deserts. They were inferior to their rivals both economically and numerically, and they were even divided among themselves.

Few of this is factually true.

As proven by history.
>weak horse nomads are able to conquer the known world
Obviously makes no sense.

>>1660069
You know what they say. Open your ass and your heart and mind will follow. /his/ autism is so powerful it managed to beat back or worse, assimilate several /pol/ takeover attempts.

>>1660084
>/his/ defends Stalin like /pol/ defends Hitler
Not true. We're against all edgy retards who worship mass murderers.

/his/ is actually a pretty diverse when it comes to political opinions. I'd say moderates and centrists have the highest population though.

>>1660090
I don't rememeber if it was the Kievan Rus but either them or someone close to them managed to defend themselves against the Mongols for a bit by hiring other step nomads to fight them, given the steam they had already gathered I'd say that's pretty interesting.

>>1660122
This means they are weak, because?

>>1660127
They could be beaten by other steppe peoples with comparatively almost no preparation or the resources of a conquered continent at their back.

>>1660144
are you mentally disabled?

a strong force checks the strategy of another strong (and overextended) force

>>1657211
>Mongols were one of the weakest horse nomads
It seems, you're wrong since they subjugated the other nomads as well as China, Persia, etc

One can rebuke the great man interpretation by looking at the world he lived in. Dinghies came to power when all the old world empires were collapsing already. The Song in china had already lost half the country, the Islamic empires had fractured into myriad breakaway states, and Europe had not recovered from the collapse of Roman, Byzantine and/or the Carolingian Empires. Big G was simply lucky enough that he came to power in a time when all the people who would have crushed him had already collapsed. This is not to say I subscribe to the opposite of great man history, after all it was Genghis as an individual that allowed him to take advantage of these conditions, but neither was he a nietzchean ubermensch that molded history as he saw fit as great man proponents would have you believe.

>>1657211
considering the success of previous nomadic people from the steppe when unified, its really not all that hard to believe. It wasnt just Genghis Khan either, he had numerous fantastic generals under him and for the most part the lands they fought in greatly greatly greatly favored Mongol style combat.
The only real head scratcher in terms of how mind blowing it was that they succeeded was the total conquest of Southern China, but considering how well the Mongols were known to incorporate their enemies strategies with their own its not terribly difficult to imagine how.

>>1660370
what's curious about the incorporation of southern china?

everything that gives the mongols an advantage in teh north gives them an advantage in teh south as well. mongol armies avoid fortification, don't require logistics, can win via attrition by starving entire provinces, etc. all of whch applies to southern china as well. it's not THAT swampy until you get to vietnam.

>>1660390
Rivers and Mountains, Negro.

The Yuan Dynasty's war in Southern China is basically Chinese Warfare. You can't "just" avoid fortifications there since most of those sit on river crossings, passes, etc.

And they sure as fuck required logistics, it was a big Chinese style infantry army they brought down there, with engineers from N. China and the Muslim Persia.

If you read up on the Yuan conquest of Southern Son it was bloody 40 years worth of attritional warfare.

>>1660390
>>1660390
I know but the south part of China had particularly strong fortifications, more mountains, and more rivers.
The Mongols still held lots of advantages but the south of China held out for so much longer despite the fact that the Song had been crumbling far before the mongols even showed up, is because southern China favors Chinese warfare more than the north does.
>>1660429
This guy got it. You really cant avoid fortifications if you want to safely administer territory, its because of their inability to destroy fortifications swiftly that the Mongols were unable to, in Europe, conquer further than the Kievan Rus.
Starving a city, especially a massive fortified Chinese city, is not as easy as you think it is, especially considering how much more difficult it would be for the Mongols to have a really effective supply line. If they avoided fortresses as you suggest they should have, then when laying seige to a city they are vulnerable to ambush.
Because they had no choice but to take it slow, it took a longer time.
However unlike the Europeans the Chinese fortresses werent close together enough to make attacking just one a time with no interruption impossible.

>>1660429
ah, correction noted.

what's curious about the yuan using northern troops to conquer southern china?

southern china is only part of china because northern china has been reconquering southern china ad infinitum for 3k years. their mtdna is actually completely different

Considering that nomadic horsemen from the steppe had been big players for two millennia prior I'd pump the brakes on attributing their empire to solely great men. Not to downplay the first few generations of khans cause they really are standout when it comes to inheriting conquest but be fair in the analysis

>>1660442
If I'm recalling correctly and we're thinking about the same northern chinamen and time period, essentially the mongols moved in to conquer the north who in turn asked for help from their southern counterpart to defend, the south in turn refused to help so as to gain the upper hand on their northern counterparts and as a result both got conquered with relative ease

>>1660442
>their mtdna is actually completely different
Southern Chinese(not counting the middle/lower Yangzi) are literally just assimilated Hmong Mien speakers with some Sinitic paternal ancestry.

>>1660096
>/his/ autism is so powerful it managed to beat back or worse, assimilate several /pol/ takeover attempts

Holy shit this is actually true. I remember a while back everyone was worried that /pol/ would take over but they straight up got repulsed by /his/'s autism power. Stirner memes and Catholicism-is-unequivocally-better-than-Protestantism circlejerks held them off

>>1660101
>/his/ is actually a pretty diverse when it comes to political opinions. I'd say moderates and centrists have the highest population though.
Maybe but you have to admit there are a ton of Marxists here too