My Daichingtala, are you of Mongolian origin?
The choice of your nickname makes me think so.
Oh no, I just like the Qing.
Dai Ching tala means Great Qing Empire in a Mongolian dialect, but maybe you already knew? Also, it's a remark on how everybody forgets about Qing Mongols.
Give Europe a dozen of full-scale nomads' invasions and it would be unrecognizable.
No disagreement there. But in reality, I would argue that what you say obfuscates the actual impact of Inner Eurasians on China and India. Nomads could be integrative and innovative for the conquered region just as much as destructive, if not more. For the classic example, the Qing was a far more
effective empire than the Ming through its codification of laws and regulations, its fiscal reforms, the palace memorial system, the Grand Council, the Imperial Household Department, the Bureau of Colonial Affairs and associated elimination of Mongol threats, and arguably tanistry (considering the aptitude of the average Qing emperor). Similarly, the Mughals, originally from Afghanistan, created a more effective state than the local regimes it supplanted with its bureaucratic reforms (for instance, abolishing the position of chief minister), the
jagir land grants, cadastral surveys, military rank system, etc. "Inner/Central Asian as antithesis of civilization" does not work in places actually subject to their rule, like China and India.
And on a more basic level, the Huns and the Mongols/Mughals/Manchus reflected different types of nomadic empires. Nicola di Cosmo classifies nomadic empires around China as tribute empires (c. 3rd century BC - 6th century AD), tribute-trade empires (6th century - 10th century), dual-administration empires (10th century - 13th century) and direct-taxation empires (13th century - 20th century). Following this model, the Huns were an empire based on tribute, while the Mongols were a direct-taxation empire. They aren't comparable things.
You see, big Empires are about winning 'by numbers'. All they need is internal stability and they will win by sheer numbers. They don't need any progress (including technological progress). What for?
Yes, but "winning by numbers" applies only to the military (late edit: and administrative systems, but efficient taxation can just as often lead to greater exploitation of more people). The people themselves will want agricultural innovations, for example, and the big empire will be unable to stop it even if it wanted to since its bureaucracy is insufficient to do so. War is only one side of society. And as an side, the Chinese regularly failed to win by sheer numbers against the Mongols, and as I noted this gave impetus for military innovations like the Portuguese cannons on the Great Wall.
Isn't it all the Chinese history about?
Actually any imperial history...
Modern historiography rejects the dynastic cycle model. For the most obvious criticism, dynasties revive (the Chinese even have a term for it,
zhongxing) as the Tang did after An Lushan's revolt and as the Song did after the initial shock of the loss of the North. And every dynastic collapse has different causes (the Han collapse and the Ming collapse were totally different things), so conflating them is like conflating the Hundred Years' War with the Fronde, that is, not very helpful. And economically, for example, treating 1550s to 1930s as one period offers a better model than dynasties. Finally, dynastic decline is not technological decline (although they can be correlated). Technology and culture developed rapidly in the late Ming, for what it's worth.
The progress is not about "saving the fabric".
You could save the fabric but kill all the progress; I mean, the Yuan management was anything but progress-friendly.
I'm not sure. Cultural trends under the Song continued under the Mongols with the continuing maturing of Neo-Confucian philosophy and especially the flourishing of art, exemplified by Zhao Mengfu. Meanwhile, Mongol integration of Eurasia helped progress through the introduction of Arabo-Persian astronomy and medicine, which the Mongols supported by making an Institute of Muslim Astronomy and an Office of Muslim Medicine. I would agree Yuan civilization was less bright than the Song as a whole, but the Mongols were much better than the early Ming (and early Ming political mismanagement shouldn't really be blamed on the Mongols, since there were more reasonable alternatives like Zhang Shicheng).