3 ms·

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the swo

by vacri 9y ago

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense. If anything is a myth about the Mongols, it's this "noble/misunderstood savages" view of them. Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable. They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. Hardly 'inclusive' and 'peaceful'. > They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute How is this different to most other empires? The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, as long as they bent the knee and paid tribute. It's not like the British put India to the sword in order to force-convert it to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire accepted many different religions, as long as you paid your tribute. And just like the Mongols, both of these empires allowed (or forced) people of conquered nations to fight for them.

nonamechicken 9y ago
Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I..., there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting. And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-..., In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
- vacri 9y ago
  It's no secret that Britain stripped India of its wealth. I wasn't saying the the British were a benevolent empire. But to imply that India dropping from 23% GDP from 1700 - 1940 was all Englands fault is grossly misleading. You're completely ignoring the Industrial revolution that swept Europe and North America in doing that, along with the immense increase in international trade that happened at the same time. The British in India played puppet states off each other. What they didn't do was wilfully exterminate entire cities.
davidreiss 9y ago
>The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Actually, the population of china rose during mongol rule. The population of some parts of northern china declined since many chinese fled to southern. But that got conquered too. > Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. No they weren't and no they didn't. > They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense. Really half a million? Why did russia's population grow so much during the mongol rule then? Russia went from nothing to one of the greatest empire during mongol rule. Wonder how that happened? Also, most of the deaths occurred in kiev and other "rus" urban areas. Not in the countryside. Russia is a vast territory. A few thousands mongols would have died of exhaustion hunting down and murdering 500K russians over thousands of miles at the very least. > Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable. I didn't say they were peaceful. I said the mongol empire was peaceful ( pax mongolica ) and the mongols brought stability and rule of law into a wide region. > They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. They did? You mean like every empire in human history? > How is this different to most other empires? That's my point. They weren't different. But they are "caricatured" as bloody thirsty savages. > The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, Except for the aborigines and the natives the british exterminated. The british are a poor example since theirs was a race based empire. Anyways, my point is that the mongols were just another empire like any other more or less. Just bigger than most and far more inclusive. The nonsense about the mongols exterminate this and that and were bloodthirsty is just historically incorrect. Just like the ludicrous assertion that half of china died under the mongol rule. Feel free to study the Yuan Dynasty. Nothing of the sort happened. It would have been biologically impossible. As I said, the mongol armies were a few thousand to maybe 20 to 30 thousand strong. Claiming they killed tens of millions of people over the vast territory of asia is ridiculous.
- vacri 9y ago
  You've got some pretty strong mythologising going on there. It's not really worth continuing with someone who thinks that an empire that massacres tribal natives = racist and unaccepting, whereas an empire that massacres urban natives = inclusive and accepting.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
>The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. The population of Europe also dropped by about 50% in roughly the same time frame, with cities hit particularly hard. The Mongol conquest coincided with the start of the Black Death, and their trade networks allowed it to spread. As for the rest of your post, empire building is by nature evil. The Mongols were just better at building than most other empires. They were fairly inclusive and accepting for an empire, the various splinter kingdoms largely took on the culture and religion of the area they controlled.This was roughly the time of the Crusades, and the thought of them with Mongol military tactics is a terrifying.

by vacri 9y ago

nonamechicken 9y ago

Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I..., there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting. And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-..., In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

vacri 9y ago
It's no secret that Britain stripped India of its wealth. I wasn't saying the the British were a benevolent empire. But to imply that India dropping from 23% GDP from 1700 - 1940 was all Englands fault is grossly misleading. You're completely ignoring the Industrial revolution that swept Europe and North America in doing that, along with the immense increase in international trade that happened at the same time. The British in India played puppet states off each other. What they didn't do was wilfully exterminate entire cities.

davidreiss 9y ago

>The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Actually, the population of china rose during mongol rule. The population of some parts of northern china declined since many chinese fled to southern. But that got conquered too. > Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. No they weren't and no they didn't. > They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense. Really half a million? Why did russia's population grow so much during the mongol rule then? Russia went from nothing to one of the greatest empire during mongol rule. Wonder how that happened? Also, most of the deaths occurred in kiev and other "rus" urban areas. Not in the countryside. Russia is a vast territory. A few thousands mongols would have died of exhaustion hunting down and murdering 500K russians over thousands of miles at the very least. > Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable. I didn't say they were peaceful. I said the mongol empire was peaceful ( pax mongolica ) and the mongols brought stability and rule of law into a wide region. > They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. They did? You mean like every empire in human history? > How is this different to most other empires? That's my point. They weren't different. But they are "caricatured" as bloody thirsty savages. > The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, Except for the aborigines and the natives the british exterminated. The british are a poor example since theirs was a race based empire. Anyways, my point is that the mongols were just another empire like any other more or less. Just bigger than most and far more inclusive. The nonsense about the mongols exterminate this and that and were bloodthirsty is just historically incorrect. Just like the ludicrous assertion that half of china died under the mongol rule. Feel free to study the Yuan Dynasty. Nothing of the sort happened. It would have been biologically impossible. As I said, the mongol armies were a few thousand to maybe 20 to 30 thousand strong. Claiming they killed tens of millions of people over the vast territory of asia is ridiculous.

vacri 9y ago
You've got some pretty strong mythologising going on there. It's not really worth continuing with someone who thinks that an empire that massacres tribal natives = racist and unaccepting, whereas an empire that massacres urban natives = inclusive and accepting.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. The population of Europe also dropped by about 50% in roughly the same time frame, with cities hit particularly hard. The Mongol conquest coincided with the start of the Black Death, and their trade networks allowed it to spread. As for the rest of your post, empire building is by nature evil. The Mongols were just better at building than most other empires. They were fairly inclusive and accepting for an empire, the various splinter kingdoms largely took on the culture and religion of the area they controlled.This was roughly the time of the Crusades, and the thought of them with Mongol military tactics is a terrifying.