Mongolian disappearance

Still, the Mongols decimated China and the Middle East, destroying knowledge and possible inventors or innovators.
That's only part of the story. The Mongols also majorly benefited world trade, held congress internationally amongst scholars, transported doctors and innovators around the world, under the reign of Kublai majorly improved infrastructure across Eurasia, are generally agreed upon for being responsible for so much of later European innovation including the technological drives behind colonialism (from memory, Columbus's final successful pitch used the idea of finding a new trade route to the Yuan court which European nobles were desperate to find again)...

In short, yes they did destroy Baghdad, but people also forget how significant they were to promoting global advancement.
 
My Daichingtala, are you of Mongolian origin?
The choice of your nickname makes me think so.
Just for the record - I am the forum's biggest fan of the Mongol history and warfare. With the longest standing :)
Do you live in China?
Sorry if I am wrong though...

Europe had much more important reasons, especially reasons internal to European dynamics, for its success than not getting invaded by the Mongols.
As I said it is not about the Mongols only, it is about Europe being far from the Great Eurasian Steppe and from the nomads' invasions.
Only once Europe was touched by the nomads' invasion; and that was not the direct full-scale invasion, that was more the consequences of the Huns pushing the Germanic tribes into migration due to dominoes' effect.
- And what did we have?
- The Western Roman Empire crumbled and a few 'dark ages' followed.

Give Europe a dozen of full-scale nomads' invasions and it would be unrecognizable.

Attempts to prove the claim that large Chinese empires had a negative affect on non-military technology have been generally unsuccessful.
Any large (pre-industrial) empires had a negative affect on technology.
I am of that opinion.
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?
Some (technological) progress is possible in the first phase of the empire and then follows the inevitable phase of decline.
Isn't it all the Chinese history about?
Actually any imperial history...

Yes, military technology does tend to develop better in a competitive world.
Everything tends to develop better in a competitive world.
Trust me. I am old enough to have first-hand experience of living inside a huge non-competitive empire.

The Yuan did not destroy the fabric of the Southern Song world, so why would this "technological revolution" not have happened, assuming it did not (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "technological revolution")?
"Technological revolution' is what happened in Europe in the XVI-XVII centuries, the birth of modern capitalistic system, whatever you call it. The beginning of industrial society...

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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
The myth that the Mongols ruined Islamic civilization in any way or put it behind the West, is just that, a myth perpetuated by non sensical revisionist historians. I will leave it at that until challenged.

Could you elaborate?
I must admit that until a few moments ago, I had the impression that the mongols killed off so many in the middle east that only the most basic structures of society remained.
But this area of history is not especially known to me, so pardon me if I come across as ignorant.
 
Could you elaborate?
I must admit that until a few moments ago, I had the impression that the mongols killed off so many in the middle east that only the most basic structures of society remained.
But this area of history is not especially known to me, so pardon me if I come across as ignorant.


The Mongols destroyed as I've characterized it, a dying animal known as Iraq or southern Mesopotamia which was in a slow decline in terms of economic production since the Assyrians which had accelerated tremendously during the Anarchy of Samarra and subsequent revolts in the region like the Zanj revolt, Batihah revolt, Qarmatians, etc... The Abbasid was exhausted and a defunct state 300 years plus before Hulagu arrived and the overall condition of the land of Iraq worse and worse and destined to decline with or without Hulagu, which could've occurred, had Musta'sim relied on his forces and engaged Hulagu at Basra and Baghdad.

Further the Mamluk sultanates of Egypt are the ultimate refutation of this flawed theory, that is and can only be held by uninformed individuals.
 

Deleted member 94708

Europe had much more important reasons, especially reasons internal to European dynamics, for its success than not getting invaded by the Mongols.

I agree most strongly with everything you've posted in this thread, though it's worth nothing that if the Mongols played any important role in the European Renaissance and its increasing lead over the rest of the world in innovation and industrial output, it was by creating a unified empire controlling the entire length of the Silk Road, which likely allowed the Black Death to enter Europe and create the conditions of general labor scarcity that kickstarted wages in Southern Europe and the Low Countries. That's a non-trivial contribution. Though, really, those areas were "special" even before the mid-14th century, so it's really hard to guess how they would have developed in the absence of those labor shortages. Otherwise, agreed in full.
 
Top