> Pooland
Lmao.
First time it was the Great Khan dying, the next time it was the Hungarians.
Poolish have done nothing throughout all.of history (scratch that they get good aces during Battle of Britain)
Mongols were infamous in China for eating the intestine of their fallen horses without cleaning them, just pushing out the feces and swallowing them whole.
Empire splintered into infighting after Ogodei
[...]
They carved Poland and Hungary 5 new buttholes in their first expedition
Not really, they met the border armies and did beat them but never managed to conquer major cities. Their only objective-heavy victories were to be found in the east.
>Mongols were infamous in China for eating the intestine of their fallen horses without cleaning them, just pushing out the feces and swallowing them whole. >Hmmm an empire demonizing their enemy, I wonder if that would ever happen
Mongols and turks practically revered their horses , there's a reason why you can't even think of one without their horse
Mongols were infamous in China for eating the intestine of their fallen horses without cleaning them, just pushing out the feces and swallowing them whole.
[...]
Not really, they met the border armies and did beat them but never managed to conquer major cities. Their only objective-heavy victories were to be found in the east.
Empire splintered into infighting after Ogodei
[...]
They carved Poland and Hungary 5 new buttholes in their first expedition
I’m constantly amazed at the sheer amount of knowledge about obscure topics on this board.
Their expedition into Europe at that time was by all definitions a vanguard with the rationale being to clean up the Cumans being sheltered by the Hungarian King. Something like 200k Hungarians died in this and their armies rode over the Polish wons. Conquest wasn't feasible after this and logistics were stretched. It would be difficult to provide for their horses.
Genghis Khan died and they all had to go back to Mongolia on their first offensive
When they came back they had lost momentum and the leadership wasn't as strong
They still kept expanding but eventually conquering China broke them
Because the generals in Europe didn't want to obey the Khan on the Pacific coast
the one weakness mongols had was supply
they were stupidly mobile, could bypass forts, engage all battles when favorable to them only and disengage pretty much at will
BUT
to accomplish all of this, Mongols needed multiple horses per rider, which in turn needed to get fed
The issue with Europe, and this was unique to Europe, was that everything was fortified and decentralized
As such all the food needed to sustain their armies would be locked up behind the local fortification
And yes, Mongols were good siege engineers, or at least their Middle Eastern and European employed/captured siege engineers were
Problem is that, even if you know you can take down a fort it still takes a while and in Europe their would be a net-loss in taking forts or the much smaller cities
combine this with a plethora of woods, rivers and streams drastically cutting down their mobility and the fact there was no such thing as bypassing a line of fortifications to strike at an unprotected underbelly and the Mongols had nothing to gain by invading Europe proper, which is why they didn't
And why would they? China was a drastically larger prize for drastically less effort, same with the Middle East
There's also a theoretical factor in that massed crossbowmen combined with heavy cavalry in theory could have a favorable matchup against horse archer armies, but in practice, mongol generals were simply way better than european generals and so was their discipline
oh and you might be wondering "well how did the mongols know this if they didn't invade europe"
reconnaissance and espionage was a critical aspect of their success and they would have been familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of europe before they ever invaded it
again, another aspect of what made the mongols so effective
There was also the added issue of their bows requiring a excessive amount of maintenance in the wet European climate. It was just way more realistic and profitable for them to turn their attention elsewhere.
>And yes, Mongols were good siege engineers, or at least their Middle Eastern and European employed/captured siege engineers were
But you can't get those experienced siege engineers to europe unless there where brought along originally. There's no telephones, no means to call up uncle TukTuk occupying Turkmenistan and have him send you a couple thousand experienced Persian slaves. That's why the logistics of an empire of that size is it's own fricking downfall, it's completely unsustainable. No possibility for the Chinese horde to know what the Europe horde is doing or needs, and visa versa.
Siege engineers were sent to Karakorum because they were valued above all other professions and were moved around the entire mongol empire with immense speed
Literally THE best way to survive a mongol assault was to say "I'm a siege engineer", they were never killed because they were that highly valued, even if the city was given the whole pyramid of skulls treatment
> no way of knowing what was going on
The Mongol messenger service was famous when during its own time you idiot.
A Mongol messenger, traveling from post station to post station, could deliver a messenger from one side of the empire to the other in something like 7 to 14 days. The dudes who ride a horse as hard as possible for, sound a horn as he got close to the post, and workers would ride out with a fresh horse, which he would jump on without stopping to keep rushing to the NEXT post.
It was better post than some fricking current '1st world' countries, like the UK, have today
This is the first good explanation I've seen, the whole recall to Mongolia thing is complete bullshit and the Mongols were absolutely not prepared to keep sweeping across Europe.
one thing that should be noted
while they would likely not have invaded europe, without the recall it is entirely plausible they would have raided into europe following the victories in Poland
the Magyars were able to raid deep into Europe as a nomadic people before settling into Hungary
>the whole recall to Mongolia thing is complete bullshit and the Mongols were absolutely not prepared to keep sweeping across Europe.
it's called saving face. it's a good excuse so you don't look bad or like a failure
This is true, a lot of save faces in history are "it was just a raid/scout" or "we had to go back due to insert reason"
Historically raids always turn into full on invasions if they see the opportunity and it's very unlikely Ogodei's death reached Batu's location so quickly, it should have taken months for that message to be received.
you are partially right but the mongols never managed to successfully siege a stone castle, what is unique to Europe at the time was heavy cavalry and masonry/engineering. Nomadic skirmish tactics are defeated by castles (read:many castles) enough castles and you can constantly harass armies and their supply lines giving them no choice but to engage in siege warfare at which point they are subject to your heavy cav (also according to Friedrich mongols were scared of crossbows lol) which absolutely will crush them no matter what ridiculous horse archer memers think.
>There's also a theoretical factor in that massed crossbowmen combined with heavy cavalry in theory could have a favorable matchup against horse archer armies
horse archers are skirmishing units, the only reason they were successful is because slavs were dumb enough to overextend themselves in pursuit. >but in practice, mongol generals were simply way better than european generals and so was their discipline
based on what? even hungarians stomped mongols in the first invasion with superior tactics and only lost due to bela being moronic.
Turns out conquering a densely populated area with people that actually have fighting experience is much harder than raiding some villages in bumfrick nowhere
fighting experience was relatively irrelevant (also not quite true, middle eastern states had just as much experience as europe)
and so was densely populated, in fact the factor that made europe so tough for them was that it WASNT the most densely populated region in the world
Europe was decentralized, and THAT was it's strength, the dense decentralization was the unique factor of europe
China can't even win a civil war, they're just a history of being conquered and ruled over every few centuries, waiting in fear of the next catastrophic death toll.
That's their greatest hit though. Everyone cites it but it's their biggest thing. Mostly the Mongols are picking on nations not their size. And even then they took a while doing it. The southern Song lasted multiple Khans.
Conquer Korea? Sort of yes, but only after they were insanely numerically superior owning China at that point.
Conquer Japan? Failed multiple times.
Conquer India? Nah.
Conquer Persia? Yes, but it was right place right time as the empire was in crisis. The mongols didn't face true organized max strength resistance like China.
>Conquer "Russia"? Only partly.
The Golden Horde conquered Russia, changing Moscow culturally forever. Russians are asiatic, not europeans, culturally, barring dissimulations.
no. he said only partially and he means only partially. go back to /k/ and seeth glow Black person
10 months ago
Anonymous
lmao you are seething mongol moskal
10 months ago
Anonymous
>no u
10 months ago
Anonymous
>buckbroken
use that buzzword for the Black folk
keep crying, mongol.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>moar buzzwords, glow Black person
10 months ago
Anonymous
>everyone that hates Russia is a glowBlack person
I mean it's not a surprise your 2 days special operation failed with this level of delusion.
FYI Ivan - the 90s will look like heaven.
Pray for death, this, time, God willing, it's finally over.
>The mongols didn't face true organized max strength resistance like China.
Not even China offered max strenght resistance because they were going through domestic issues due to decades of terribly incompetent imperial administration. (
>Except that the Song rulers were paranoid morons who purposely killed every single person with anything resembling military acumen, and constantly swapped what sub-par commanders they had around to prevent the armies from having any loyalty to them
Had the Dragon Emperor been a competent man, history could have turned out very differently than it did.
>Emperor Duzong ignored his duties and instead delegated all state and military affairs to the hands of Jia Sidao; the emperor instead indulged in drinking, women, and lived in opulence
>The Mongols had spent decades harassing the Song Empire's borders and were on the verge of conquering the whole of China. Emperor Duzong however, ignored this problem instead choosing to drink and indulging in sex because when Duzong heard that Xiangyang was being besieged by Mongol troops, Duzong asked Jia Sidao "I hear that Xiangyang had been besieged by the Yuan troops for several years. Is this true?" in which Jia said in all seriousness "Well, I haven't heard such a thing." Duzong replied with "A palace maid told me this."[6]
>Lu Wenhuan sent a messenger to Emperor Duzong, to request immediate reinforcements to defend Xiangyang. The messenger successfully got by the Yuan forts and reached the emperor but upon hearing the effectiveness of these new trebuchets, the emperor considered Xiangyang lost and did not send reinforcements. The decisive Battle of Xiangyang was fought in 1274 when the Mongols succeeded in capturing and destroying the last Song stronghold. The loss of Xiangyang sealed the fate of the Song dynasty and the news of its capture was deliberately hidden from Emperor Duzong by Jia Sidao.
)
If the last Song emperors were half-decent, maybe the mongols would never be able to conquer them.
You are vastly overestimating the 'fighting experience' of the europeans. Any fat homosexual can swing a sword in the direction of a dudes head. Stop watching movies, there was no Brad Pitts dual wielding claymores killing 400 dudes in a single battle.
White people weren’t plains morons easily destroyed by a bunch of manlets on horseback, they’d have been slaughtered if they’d gone there. The only people capable of killing and colonizing whites were other whites. For such a political hotbed of war and violence it was always in house, so to speak.
It's a silly name, also they're in the part of "russia" that wasn't russian back then
the true russia is around moscow and that definitely is non-white
The only reason Russia is the backward autocratic state we know it as today is entirely because of the Mongol Empire’s influence on it. The Republic of Novgorod for instance was a beacon of commerce and enlightenment during the Medieval period long before the Mongs showed up.
There’s no arguing that it was a white European state, no “lol Russian mongoloids”.
Today its still a case of western elites exploiting the third world through neocolonialism, they've just decided to replace their own working class with people from those exploited countries because they're cheaper and useful to dissolve relics of the past like national identities which stand in the way of their global ambitions.
So in a way its not so much the fall of the west as it its transformation into something fully global.
I enjoyed Mongol, it wasn't a very good movie though.
The mongal empire was shit by every definition.
Most of the land they occupied is empty, especially back then when the world's population was less than 500m.
They only conquered shitholes, eventually reaching Europe where they inflected damage but only by using huge numbers of slave solders, and they still fricking lost.
They couldn't even defeat the Japanese, Indians or the Arabs.
Easily one of the most overrated empire in history, pushed forward by woke "we wuz khun" chinks.
>They couldn't even defeat the Japanese
They were unable to conquer Japan because typhoons you moron, otherwise the nips would have been raped to death by the golden horde
[...]
[...]
The mongal empire was shit by every definition.
Most of the land they occupied is empty, especially back then when the world's population was less than 500m.
They only conquered shitholes, eventually reaching Europe where they inflected damage but only by using huge numbers of slave solders, and they still fricking lost.
They couldn't even defeat the Japanese, Indians or the Arabs.
Easily one of the most overrated empire in history, pushed forward by woke "we wuz khun" chinks.
, but Japan isn't exactly terrain suitable for Mongolian cavalry tactics. It's a mountainous series of Islands, not the open steppes on which the hordes horses thrive, I think the horde would have to end up resorting to dismounted infantry tactics a lot of the time to take individual defended jap cities.
And the mongols where fricking awful at at sieges, they needed chinese slaves to build siege equipment for them, which they would have, but still, logistics of it all. I just don't see it working out for them
one of the dumbest comments this year. My goodness dude just say you don't know shit about the Mongol empire and be done with it. First mongol contact with euro countries was completely one sided euros got destroyed. The only reason the mongole empire didn't go further into Europe is because the khan died and they had to debate on who who'd be the next leader.
europe was pretty shit at the time compared to the middle east and china anyway and central asia wasn't empty until that Black person timur murdered everyone
depends on how you describe shit
Middle East had much more centralized large cities which were easier to loot
but standard of life for the average person in Europe was higher than the Middle East
Their leader died and Egypt and China were richer places to conquer.
>They couldn't even defeat the Japanese
They were unable to conquer Japan because typhoons you moron, otherwise the nips would have been raped to death by the golden horde
The Japanese beat them fair and square, even without the typhoons.
Persia and China were far wealthier and stronger than Europe at the time.
I remember the records of some Italian about the military strength of world powers a few centuries after the Mongol invasions.
It was more or less like this:
The King of France had 60k soldiers.
The King of Aragon 25k
The King of Castile 35k
The King of England 25k
The ruler of Persia had 200k
wealthier yes, stronger not necessarily
French heavily cavalry basically tore holes through middle eastern armies
Also remember that the king of France didn't really have that much power, if you combined the army of all of France you definitely had something far larger
ah much later on
in that case, well that era Persia did have large armies but European armies were much much better in quality
60k high morale, well trained, soldiers are far more valuable than 200k conscripts
Logistics problems from the Steppe ending and forest beginning (their animals need to graze) combined with stone castles being really efficient fortifications.
The Mongols had a lot of experience taking large fortified cities. Taking 100 small highly defensible stone forts was new to them and it wasn't easy.
The succession struggle of the Mongols which why Batu Khan stopped his armies to participate in the Great Khan elections. Also the Mongol empire was too big for the Middle Ages and it quickly splintered after the death of Ögedei.
didnt they literally frick georgia with a fricking scouting party tier unit and then when they did decide to come frick yurop the leader at the time (maybe genghis) died so they turned around and went home - yurop literally being a single death away from getting overrun and dickslapped
Because the Mongols got their shit pushed in anytime they weren't raiding farms and small villages. Same reason they couldn't take India or the Middle East. The Romanians in particular would literally capture Mongol men and buck break them. They were seen as monsters because they would hunt them in the woods. >what about China
Most of mainland China was empty. All the strongholds were on the coast.
The kings of Hungary building loads of castles. They were not really able to carry out lengthy siege warfare so far away from their bases of power. Their invasions of Poland and Hungary were basically huge chevauchées where they tried to devastate the countryside as much as possible rather than actual attempts to take and hold ground.
I enjoyed Mongol, it wasn't a very good movie though.
Empire splintered into infighting after Ogodei
[...]
They carved Poland and Hungary 5 new buttholes in their first expedition
>The invasion was repelled handily, and the Mongols lost much of their invading force due to several months of starvation, numerous small raids, and two major military defeats. This was mostly thanks to the new fortification network and the military reforms. No major invasion of Hungary would be launched after the failure of the campaign of 1285
A few decades was all it took for Europeans to adapt and completely destroy the mongols. Fricking pathetic
Hungary won the second invasion due to building castles but all the actual european countries (hungary were nomadic settlers) were already heavily castled, the mongols never had a chance at invading the european heartland.
>hungary were nomadic settlers
Anon, hungarians stopped being nomadic a long time before that. LONG time.
You are overall correct in your post but come the frick on.
>people think mongols dominated the knights and castles of euros and the west somehow had to adapts to just fight off the mongols specifically >they were actually defeated by the heavy knights and castles of euros
I dunno if this is supposed to be a counterpoint but yes. the mongols successes against the outer edge of europe were due to them not using actual european strat/tact and luck/incompetence
yet not a single good movie about them...
curious...
they spent like 12 years just fighting the chinks which was the only actual real country they ever conquered. they couldnt take anything else but were annoying enough to the greeks that they paid them to frick off. they may as well rode north and claimed all the uninhabited snow wastes to their "empire" to brag about size. their battle success in europe was because they came completely out of left field from the fog of war with giant doom stacks. once euros got the measure of them they beat them off no problem
>the only actual real country they ever conquered.
The Khwarazm was more than just a country. It was very populated in antiquity up to that period.
You forget it because they killed 90% of its people.
I enjoyed Mongol, it wasn't a very good movie though.
Didn't a Hungarian king completely wipe the floor with these guys despite the fact that his country was absolutely annihilated by the Mongols just a very short time earlier?
So you're telling me a country obliterated by genocide and destruction was able to completely turn things around in the span of a single human life and crush the mongols, but we're all supposed to think they ever ad a chance of conquering Europe?
Holt frick the Chinese and Persians must have been pathetic back then
>Didn't a Hungarian king completely wipe the floor with these guys despite the fact that his country was absolutely annihilated by the Mongols just a very short time earlier?
actually from what i remember reading about it, hungarians completely dominated the mongols to such an overwhelming extent in their round 2 that the king and his army wasnt able to fully engage the mongols before his own vassals and minor lords totally crushed them which lead to a crisis in the kingdom because people started to ask what they really needed the king for if they can protect themselves. in the interim between the first and second invasion all his vassals had built up their armies so strong by recruiting heavy knights and building castles that they didnt need the kings army anymore
The chinese are pretty infamously terrible at warfare, historically.
You have to wonder about their modern state of mind in regards to it. Part of them is eager to shake off the label, and the other part fears they'll fail like their ancestors did for thousands of years.
>he Chinese and Persians must have been pathetic back then
pretty much
they still are today
Iran almost just fell apart because some bawd dodnt wear a hijab
they were like the legion in new vegas
a powerful army that will steamroll everything in its path, but no functioning nation underneath, just a bunch of slaves and rapebabies, a nation begins with family, all they did was shove the fromerly conquered into adhoc administrative roles, Mongols were bickering easily offended grudgeholding literal steppe savages, the second ghengis died it was a slow death of bickering in fighting
I always thought it would be kino if there was a TV series about the mongols where every season was a different civilization dealing with them. You could have the first season about Genghis Khan conquering the other tribes along the steppe, then there could be a season about the mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty in China, a season about the attempted invasion of Japan and the subsequent Kamikaze, all the way up to their assault into Eastern Europe and eventual collapse.
Gengkis Khan.
It was said that a woman could walk from one end of the empire to the other with a pot of gold on her head completly unmolested, such was the resspec and fear of the khan. This was said by the kwarezmian writers, their mortal enemies.
>largest empire >80% of it is desert wastelands
Also, this is not accurate. By the time Kublai conquered China the Mongols broke apart in 4 different kingdoms
Should be noted that the conquest of Song China wasn't set in stone
In theory they had everything needed to mount a successful defense
Except that the Song rulers were paranoid morons who purposely killed every single person with anything resembling military acumen, and constantly swapped what sub-par commanders they had around to prevent the armies from having any loyalty to them
Which worked to prevent internal rebellion, but the Mongols just steamrolled all over them because they were "that" incompetent
That the Mongols had god-tier generals, in large part due to their culture rewarding military expertise and being highly meritocratic in this aspect
>Except that the Song rulers were paranoid morons who purposely killed every single person with anything resembling military acumen, and constantly swapped what sub-par commanders they had around to prevent the armies from having any loyalty to them
Had the Dragon Emperor been a competent man, history could have turned out very differently than it did.
>Emperor Duzong ignored his duties and instead delegated all state and military affairs to the hands of Jia Sidao; the emperor instead indulged in drinking, women, and lived in opulence
>The Mongols had spent decades harassing the Song Empire's borders and were on the verge of conquering the whole of China. Emperor Duzong however, ignored this problem instead choosing to drink and indulging in sex because when Duzong heard that Xiangyang was being besieged by Mongol troops, Duzong asked Jia Sidao "I hear that Xiangyang had been besieged by the Yuan troops for several years. Is this true?" in which Jia said in all seriousness "Well, I haven't heard such a thing." Duzong replied with "A palace maid told me this."[6]
>Lu Wenhuan sent a messenger to Emperor Duzong, to request immediate reinforcements to defend Xiangyang. The messenger successfully got by the Yuan forts and reached the emperor but upon hearing the effectiveness of these new trebuchets, the emperor considered Xiangyang lost and did not send reinforcements. The decisive Battle of Xiangyang was fought in 1274 when the Mongols succeeded in capturing and destroying the last Song stronghold. The loss of Xiangyang sealed the fate of the Song dynasty and the news of its capture was deliberately hidden from Emperor Duzong by Jia Sidao.
it's also quite interesting to note that these trebuchets were middle eastern/european designs (both were in an arms race with each other and internally on this) and both in both aspects of siege warfare, offense and defense, China was almost hopelessly outdated
Somehow this gets misrepresented too often, as if China was more advanced in this than them, usually with some vague mention of "gunpowder"
But the counterweight trebuchet was legit a superweapon as far as China was concerned and a standard feature of western/middle eastern warfare
It was not much of an empire, more like just a mass plundering. Mongols pretty much had no interest in establishing an actual empire. The Turkic cultures they conquered in the steppe eventually became the identity of the empire because of this. The Golden Horde converted to Islam after Turkification and they eventually became various khagnates and caliphates.
Unless you wanted a movie about people getting raped and murdered en masse it would be pretty boring.
>Biggest, most important european state for basically all the middle ages >Survived 10 times as long as that lame Mongol "empire" >Happenings, science and great men that shaped the fate of the world
0 kinos, explain
>Because greeks weren't actually that important
Baffling opinion. Most important people in world history and it's not even close. No other people can even be considered. All of technology originates in Greek philosophy. Roman law, our inheritance, also Greek. The new testament, the founding text of the world's biggest religion, Greek.
>Baffling opinion. Most important people in world history and it's not even close. No other people can even be considered. All of technology originates in Greek philosophy. Roman law, our inheritance, also Greek. The new testament, the founding text of the world's biggest religion, Greek.
If you're of Greek ancestry. You already know the truth, and dont need to brag no defend your heritage. History, and Scholars around the world agree, so dont waste your breathe.
basically this
[...]
also the byzantium is not very popular to the wider audience as the roman empire
i guess it is also because of their lack of a real succesor state: everyone in that area has their own nationalistic history to shill. The greeks can go "muh athens, muh alexander" the bulgarians "muh khan" the turks "muh suleiman" the serbs "they deseved it" ect. None identify as 100% heirs to byzantium so nobody cares.
Imagine the nationalistic shilling on boards like Cinemaphile and /misc/ if a smal part of the empire had survived and made it into a nation, they wouldnt be able to ever shut up about how amazing they were back in the day...
It’s a crime that Belisarius still didn’t get a quality movie. He defeated the Persians stopping an almost unstoppable invasion with only his fearsome reputation, Vandals and Goths and practically reconquered the Roman Empire.
also make it clear just how utterly lucky Justinian was to have him, because all things considered, Justinian was a pretty bad emperor who simply lucked into having the empire at it's wealthiest and most stable as inheritance (yes it got unstable under him, but that was his bloody fault, Nika was a failure on his part)
When Justinian regretted not conquering Italy he gave a huge army to Narses, another of his capable subordinates, so the eunuch crushed the Franks with remaining Ostrogoths and returned Italy under the Byzantine control.
Justinian's conquest of Italy was so half assed he turned it into a wasteland and in the process sacrificed his eastern defenses so much the Persians could raid some of his most valuable provinces for years
Not only that but his exploits drained the coffers completely and his bungled diplomacy meant that continuous wars with Persia were inevitable
and all that when the conquest of the Ostrogothic state wasn't necessary, they were in an active romanization process
All he had to do was keep their client-status and keep supporting loyal rulers and eventually they would have been either valuable allies or just straight up integrated more and more
also make it clear just how utterly lucky Justinian was to have him, because all things considered, Justinian was a pretty bad emperor who simply lucked into having the empire at it's wealthiest and most stable as inheritance (yes it got unstable under him, but that was his bloody fault, Nika was a failure on his part)
>Belisarius
basedlisarius
The people in the lands he (re)conquered loved him and wanted him to rule as their king instead of Emperor Justinian because he was so merciful, just and benevolent to the people.
He was certainly one of a kind and if he was the Roman Emperor things could have turned out very differently than it did a thousand years later.
Everyone knows about the John Wayne movie but no one ever mentions the Omar Sharif one. It's at least a bit better and slightly historical, showing the invasion of China for example. Also the mongol horde is apparently a happy multicultural group consisting of whites, blacks and led by an Egyptian.
>Also the mongol horde is apparently a happy multicultural group consisting of whites, blacks and led by an Egyptian.
Genghis and most of his successors were famously pro-multiculturalism. There were half a dozen languages spoken in his court and he adopted advisors from every society they conquered.
Kinos are made only about what americans find interesting. This generally means
1) historically they like to larp as part of (romans/ greeks)
2) history they can use to justify their society (crusades)
3) very modern history, obsessing over wwii in particular
I listen to Dan Carlin's podscasts when I work out. One that stuck in my mind is the Wrath of the Khans, specifically the conquest of China. I remember him quoting the records from the Muslim diplomats en route to the capital of China to seek new powerful ally on the continent and them instead finding a land so soaked with human fat that they couldnt tread ground and a pyramid of skulls obscuring the city walls, their menial workers falling sick from pleague from the over-present corpses and their more literate kin who thought they were to meet a civilization so ahead of theirs they might as well be gods, only to realize said gods were already conquered and slaughtered by another civilization they had never even heard of...imagine the horror. Imagine the foreshadowing of what was to come in mere years.
>the Middle east and Europe had already surpassed them in certain aspects
The Jurchen Jin in the north were less developed and pretty much barbarians as well in the eyes of the Han chinese in the south, they were also the ancestors of the Manchu that would eventually conquer China proper in the 1600 and establish the Qing Dynasty.
The Song, however, were almost certainly better than europeans in nearly every way. They were very developed and ushered a golden age in China that made the average chinese at the time, richer than the average european. In fact, the Song-era was the last time in history that the chinese had a better GPD per capita and higher standard of living than europeans. Mongols destroyed all of that.
>The Song, however, were almost certainly better than europeans in nearly every way.
Metallurgy, animal husbandry, siege engineering, architecture
all aspects in which Europe was superior
Also no the average chinese was not richer, the upper classes lived better lives, by far, that's true, but the best place to be a peasant, around the time of the mongol invasions, was europe
oh no, frick no
remember Baghdad had an immense slave population and middle eastern slaves had it terrible
Europe on the other hand, specifically western europe, had no slavery, both France and the HRE had outlawed the practice
Cities also were cesspools of disease and poverty, when the medieval european peasant was relatively healthy and had a surprisingly varied diet
Not only that but contrary to popular belief, but local lords were not tyrannical, they had a vested interest in keeping their population happy since they had so much less of them and in europe, due to the decentralized nature, peasants could actually pack up and leave to a conveniently recently established village in a neighboring lord's territory
10 months ago
Anonymous
>peasants could actually pack up and leave
only with your ~~*lords*~~ permission yurocuck
The Mongols fricked Baghdad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)
They even put one of the Muzzie leaders in a rug and trampled him to death with their horses (shedding royal blood was bad or something)
10 months ago
Anonymous
Really underrated moment in history. Really set Islam back a ton.
10 months ago
Anonymous
If it didn't happen maybe muslims would not be violent savages as well today
10 months ago
Anonymous
Muzzies definitely deserved it too
10 months ago
Anonymous
>the eponymous Order of Assassins tried two assassinations against the Mongols, failed, had their Grand Master executed by them and were then totally destroyed after nearly 200 years of existence
KWAB
Before his conquest of Jin China Genghis was in contact with Muslim merchants who wanted to establish trade connections with China, but at that time China was very protective so they gained his trust and sold him information to spur on his invasion. Ironic considering the ruin he would lay on trade capitals of the muslim world like Bokhara and Kharkand.
Nothing good ever came out of Central Asia, only primitive, violent barbarians that set human civilization back hundreds of years every time they happened to have a competent leader who led them out of the steppes.
It’s funny because Genghis wanted to establish peace and trade with the neighboring Kwazarmid Caliphate and sent a diplomatic mission there but they thought they were durkadur savage barbarian infidels and slaughtered them all and it enraged Genghis so much he invaded and destroyed Central Asia so bad it demographically still hasn’t recovered and went on further to destroy Bagdad and kill over a million people and the only thing that stopped the mongols going further was the desert who the Egyptian mamluks used against them. Had it not been for that one emissary group being killed the sudden decline of the islamic world never would have happen and history would have been irreparably altered.
They were irredeemable c**ts and they would conquer civilizations by genociding anybody that opposed them down to the last child. There is no way to paint them as hero characters in any way so it could only be a depressing movie where innocent people are slaughtered and that's not something that brings in a box office
I am amazed by the level of stupidity of people here.
Turkish = from the republic of Turkey, speaking their language
Turkic = of one of the many turk ethnicities, they also look very different from each other.
moron. You utter, fricking moron.
>Ottomans were not steppeBlack folk, they were Greekaboos, then interbred with them aggressively
??????????
homie learn history and numbers
Otoomans are seljuks
Ottomans had nothing special going on with greeks, they were just another people they ruled over and even then the numbers of greeks were an extremely marginal amount compared to the turks OR any of the other dozens of nations and people they conquered
There's nothing similar culturally either, I don't get this post
homie, read up on your actual history
They didn't invade some empty bit of land, Anatolia was heavily populated with greeks, and while the nobles fled in advance of the Seljuks, the commoners stayed behind and became the core lower class of Rum and later the Ottomans
hell not even all the nobles fled, TONS of nobles mentioned later have blatant Greek names
Greeks were not a marginal account, it were the TURKS who were a marginal amount, their migration was not that large
Look again at what the core territories of the early Ottomans were, they coastal regions, which were almost entirely greek
Ottomans even moved their capital as far west as they could because they were THAT big greekaboos and almost the entire ottoman style of rulership is copy pasted from the Byzantine empire
Hell even look at the name the anatolian seljuks had: Rum
They considered themselves god damn ROMANS
>Greeks were not a marginal account, it were the TURKS who were a marginal amount, their migration was not that large
Anon the pure amount of commoner nomads entering anatolia before ottomonas were a thing were already in the fricking millions >Look again at what the core territories of the early Ottomans were, they coastal regions, which were almost entirely greek
You are a legit uneducated Black person by this point, look at how ottomans were formed. Seljuks turned into multiple big clans in anatolia and ottomans were the ones that happened to be on the western side >Ottomans even moved their capital as far west as they could because they were THAT big greekaboos and almost the entire ottoman style of rulership is copy pasted from the Byzantine empire
You're just fricking posting shit you don't know anything about, the frick anon
No, turks did not fricking use the late byzantine rulership in any shape or fricking form
The way they spread and vassalized was much closer to older romans and not even close enough this comparison to matter >Hell even look at the name the anatolian seljuks had: Rum
?????
Rum is literally a turkish word that means greek living in certain lands, it never, ever fricking referred to turks
Not gonna bother replying to another post when this Black person probably takes his Cinemaphile knowledge from facebook frog and wohjachksposters
Mate, even as late as the year 1900 the coastal regions were dominated by people who were greek entirely
All DNA tests on commoner turks show they have a massive amount of greek heritage today, and that's before the genocides of the 20th century against people with too much greek heritage
Ottoman bureaucracy was almost entirely Byzantine in nature, hell they even explicitly used educated greeks in that role, and yes they moved their capital as close west as they could, and then moved it to Constantinople and yes it's Constantinople because the Ottomans CALLED IT THAT
Konstantinye to be accurate but this whole Istanbul stuff is pure Ataturk
The nomads that entered Anatolia during the aftermath of Manzikert were a minority and even later migrations did not displace or wipe out the local populations
It's only in the anatolian highlands that a majority Turk population was established but those were sparsely populated
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about
10 months ago
Anonymous
moron. Turkic ancestry reaches up to 40% in coastal areas. Speros Vryonis himself estimates majority of the rural areas were deserted with the onslaught of the Turks in the 13th century. 20% of Turkey was nomadic until the 18th century, and this is despite Ottomans following a strict sedentarization policy against the nomadic Turcomans. You don't know what you're talking about.
10 months ago
Anonymous
note that reads medieval turkic ancestry, greek ancestry is separate from this, which is what's wrong with the story and why it's manipulative
10 months ago
Anonymous
>moron. Turkic ancestry reaches up to 40% in coastal areas.
I have to ask for a source because afaik the highest % is just BEFORE the sea and never above 25%, usually around 15%
10 months ago
Anonymous
Then explain to me why Turkey in all its ancient glory has been completely and irrevocably irrelevant since the 1600s, turning into a literal authoritarian joke today.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Mate, even as late as the year 1900 the coastal regions were dominated by people who were greek entirely
All DNA tests on commoner turks show they have a massive amount of greek heritage today, and that's before the genocides of the 20th century against people with too much greek heritage
Ottoman bureaucracy was almost entirely Byzantine in nature, hell they even explicitly used educated greeks in that role, and yes they moved their capital as close west as they could, and then moved it to Constantinople and yes it's Constantinople because the Ottomans CALLED IT THAT
Konstantinye to be accurate but this whole Istanbul stuff is pure Ataturk
The nomads that entered Anatolia during the aftermath of Manzikert were a minority and even later migrations did not displace or wipe out the local populations
It's only in the anatolian highlands that a majority Turk population was established but those were sparsely populated
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about
Hey, I was looking into something like this basically last night. Because I am a believer now in the Altaic Language family theory (not linguist or qualified to believe this) which postulates that Mongolian and Turkish are related language by an older common language. Realized I don't really know much about "Turks", the Seljuks, and their connection to other "turkic" peoples like the Kazakhs.
"Old" Seljuks looked asian (just like CK III tells us). You look at a not-Russian Kazakh today and you have an idea of what an OG Turk Sultan looked like before they started breeding with Balkanites and Greeks. Just look at their art from the Seljuk Empire period that proceeds Rum and Turk golden period on the western fringes.
Old Oghuz before they converted to Islam were partying around the Aral Sea. Take a look at the kind of people that still live there. Maybe genetically they are still (seljuk) "Turk" but it's pretty obvious some heavy interbreeding has been happening since the days of Rum, which at least changed the phenotype look of the common "Turk."
10 months ago
Anonymous
>before they started breeding with Balkanites and Greeks.
When they reached anatolia they already bred with iranic people in the very least, anon.
I mean the frickin anatolian nomads can have blonde people you don't find as much on the coasts.
>Rum is literally a turkish word that means greek living in certain lands, it never, ever fricking referred to turks
I'm not the anon you were talking to but you're obviously trying to use some semantic nonsense instead of an actual argument.
The Sultanate of Rum was called that because the turks considered that land Rome and it's greek inhabitants, romans. Your bullshit semantics miss the point entirely.
After Constantinople fell Mehmed II created for himself the title Kaiser-i-Rüm, which literally means Caesar of Rome.
>largest empire in the history of mankind
The Mongol Empire is the largest CONTIGUOUS empire in the history of mankind, the largest empire in general in the history of mankind was the British Empire. Even so, my most favourite empire of all time was the Mongol Empire. Genghis Khan was a total chad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_King_Gesar
Bene Geserit from dune is a reference to that
I was born and grew in Buryatia, that's part of Russia neighboring modern Mongolia
I saw fire pits on top of mountains that was a part of signalling system used by military in that Mongol Empire era. Just some holes in the rocks, really, but they were eerie and unusual.
I moved from that place 10 years ago but still missing that empty wilderness.
they are, fren
Mongolians are total bros, they chill and happy to help you should you have any trouble
it's easy to get lost and die during winters season in Mongolia so people there are watching each other's back
Well why the hell would Alexander go North when the center of the world was the Middle East? The British also had no reason to invade some random frozen backwater during their reign so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
>Sweden with Finland = empire >Russia with Finland = empire
Finland is the key to all this
Well why the hell would Alexander go North when the center of the world was the Middle East? The British also had no reason to invade some random frozen backwater during their reign so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
>can't even conquer a bunch of spurdos >cope by going to the middle east
kek what a b***h
Mongols reached Poland around 1250, Europe did not have plate armor, guns, or heavy cavalry yet. We would have been completely fricked. That is nuts we could all be yellow if they kept going.
I mean more like 13th-century-onward Cuirassier style cavalry specifically, at that point Europe could have fricked anyone on the planet. I don't think crusades-era heavy cavalry would have been able to do much against mongol horses.
12th century French knights, if fully equipped and ready would utterly demolish anything the mongols had, if they could reach them, and mongol bows would have major issues hurting them
We have accounts of horse archers (granted, these were turks not mongols) who got caught by european knights and it was a one-sided massacre
European horses were far larger, stronger and faster, what they lacked was long distance endurance, but in a charge they were effectively unstoppable
Problem against the Mongols would not have been in theoretical capabilities, but rather in terms of discipline and leadership
Mongols were masters of feigned retreats and Europeans would charge after them 9 out of 10 times, which would lead to them getting tired and then caught when separated from their infantry
Same thing with european crossbowmen, if equipped with pavise shields, they're pretty much hardcounters to horse archers
but there was simply no way they could force horse archers into such a confrontation
but if a competently led western european army could force a mongol army into a direct confrontation, and both commanders were of equal skill, they would come out on top the vast majority of time
just, pure theoretical, because there was really no way to accomplish that
We were not that much more advanced than the Arabs we were fighting in the crusades, who the Mongols were crushing around 1250. I don't think it would have been as much of a sweep as you are saying. European militaries didn't really have technical and tactical superiority until the late 14th century. I don't think Pavise shields were even used for another century at the time the Mongols would have been able to invade Europe.
remember that technology was not linear back then, different regions of the world were advanced in different ways
European horses were the only ones in the world capable of fulfilling a true heavy cavalry role, this wasn't because Europe was magically more advanced than anyone (they weren't) but rather because of centuries of selective breeding because european wars favored that kind of horse, while middle-eastern horses were bred for different purposes
same with mongol horses
and these warhorses were highly prized and strictly controlled, it wasn't simple to acquire them and definitely almost impossible to set up an independent series of stud farms
true Pavise was not used but stationary shields were used by crossbowmen, and in general, crossbowmen are favored over horse archers because they have larger effective reach and much higher density, if you can get them in a battle where the nomadic forces won't just "nope" out
it's also why often mixing horse archers with infantry armies tended to be a dud, without the strategic mobility of nomadic armies, they lose a lot of their effectiveness
10 months ago
Anonymous
What use is heavy cavalry without plate armor when you are against a larger horse army? Mongol bows could definitely penetrate European armor at the time, especially what most people were equipped with.
You have a point about crossbows, but weren't crossbows of similar quality in use in China when the Mongols conquered them? I am fairly certain the Han dynasty had crossbows on par with what the Italians were using.
10 months ago
Anonymous
No, Chinese crossbows were shitty. Italian ones were leagues ahead. Same thing happened with guns as well, Chinese came up with them but Italians quickly outperformed them.
10 months ago
Anonymous
European armor around that era absolutely could stand up against composite bows, mongol bows had about the same draw weight of muslim bows (though were much more suited for mounted use) and crusaders were described as finishing their charge covered entirely with arrows, completely unharmed, by muslim accounts
European crossbows were higher draw weight than Chinese at this era, though the Chinese did have more than sufficiently advanced crossbows to be more than a match for the Mongols
but as pointed out earlier, the reason for the Song's defeat was not their military capabilities, it was that Song actively and intentionally had destroyed their army's ability to function
They had effectively zero experienced commanders and had less than zero generational experience due to the execution of every general with even a bit of talent
ontop of that Song troops had ludicrously low morale and discipline, again, intentionally
given competent leadership the Song could have stood up to the mongols, zero doubt about that, but the Mongols had god tier generals, and god tier discipline and morale
And as I pointed out the crossbowmen vs horse archers was in a vacuum, there was just no way to force that encounter against mongols
10 months ago
Anonymous
crossbows are complete shit unless they have steel springs, didn't exist back then, just shitty corkscrew garbage
10 months ago
Anonymous
even mere gambeson is enough to stop arrows anon the bow generally isnt aimed directly at you and even if it can in ideal circumstances penetrate it has to penetrate with enough force to kill/disable you not just tickle your nips
10 months ago
Anonymous
>even mere gambeson is enough to stop arrows
MASSIVE over-generalization.
>in a charge they were effectively unstoppable
They were severely ineffective against proper infantry. Cavalry never "charged" head-on, historically speaking: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326651393_Combat_Training_for_Horse_and_Rider_in_the_Early_Middle_Ages
As for Turks, they were very effective against light armored Crusaders, but Seljuk bows which had lower draw weights couldn't pierce through Franco-Norman armors. Hence the reason you have various descriptions of Crusaders looking like porcupines after battling Turks. Ottoman, Mamluk and Mongol bows on the other hand were 40-50lb heavier and would have been were very effective against full plated French knights as per historical records (14th-15th century Ottoman-European wars). I doubt Mongols would have been very effective if they were to attempt a full scale invasion after their first one however. Their tactics were already becoming antiquated in the Middle East and Mamluk style training proved superior. The rapidness in which motte and bailey forts were being transformed into the concentric castles during the late 13th century wouldn't help them either.
early middle ages though
and while I agree with you that the primary use of a cavalry charge was to break the morale, however 12th century european heavy cavalry was unique in that it was actually capable of a frontal charge if needed, and was unique in that
(got cut off too early sorry)
While mongol bows would have been capable of penetration, it would not have been consistent
After all the english longbow was not capable of penetrating the armor of french knights on a consistent basis either, though admittedly most encounters between the 2 were 13th century rather than 12th
It's likely that Parthian shot, even with Mongol bows, would not have been truly effective and taking careful aim straight on would have been a gamble that they could stop the cavalry before it reached them
because while charges into infantry were rare, heavy cavalry charging into light cavalry if capable, was a common tactic (though risky because light cavalry would try to disengage if able)
10 months ago
Anonymous
Bodkins were able to penetrate French armors from up close thoughever. So were the Turkish arrows, which had smaller diameter and unlike the English longbow tactics they would close up until 20-30 meters from the enemy line and pullback while doing a caracole.
10 months ago
Anonymous
true but getting that close range was still a gamble, and even then not guaranteed
you're counting on taking out enough knights before they reach you that they withdraw, because when they're within melee range of you, a single knight will likely take out multiple of your archers
10 months ago
Anonymous
But they did, anon. Frequently! It was the essence of steppe tactics-- harass the enemy from distance with lighter horses until they are broken and follow up with a shock charge. It worked very well until the advent of firearms; if you count Eastern European uhlans/hussars etc., it worked for in fact even longer-- And I am aware they were not horse archers but light cavalry harassment tactics were developed in the Euro-Ottoman/Tartar frontier, and were obviously a continuation of the steppe cavalry tactics. It's also why Eastern Euros were historically light armored.
10 months ago
Anonymous
true but it was not guaranteed those would work, heavy cavalry could and did catch up to horse archers
10 months ago
Anonymous
you're just describing the concept of skirmishing, it only works as a primary battle tactic if your enemy is moronic. if they arent they recognize superior mobility/logistics and dont engage in the first place and neither does the side with the initiative.
>city surrenders >kill every single person >wait around on the outskirts for 3 days >anyone concealing themselves during the massacres assumes the coast is clear >kill them >now everyone really is dead
They were insanely cruel.
it's also sort of hilarious how much both muslims and leftwing idiots harp about the Crusades
when, by the standards of the day, Crusade conquests were among the LEAST damaging
Whites and israelites don't want to make movies about them
They shatter the eurocentric delusion they have going on. That european peoples were at the mercy of Asians and Arabs and others at some points of history. That their current hegemony is possibly just a brief fart.
turks were the core of mongol empire. mongols just took all credit but in fact they're nobodies then they're nobodies now. and genghis khan was a kazakh
What the frick is an empire even? You barge into a city state, murder a bunch of people, take a bunch of shit, leave one of your inbred sons behind to harass the locals while you’re gone, and go to the next city state to ransack. Then you come back after 2 years to check up on the place and do the same thing. Mad empire you have there.
I recall some major exibition about them in US that painted them in possitive light, improving commerce, bringing in new cultures, etc. When some Iraqi immigrants complaid, the museum told them only white people colonize and plunder, po enrich.
>largest empire in the history of mankind
The Mongol Empire is the largest CONTIGUOUS empire in the history of mankind, the largest empire in general in the history of mankind was the British Empire. Even so, my most favourite empire of all time was the Mongol Empire. Genghis Khan was a total chad.
>british empire is 90% uninhabited wastelands jungle and thundra >most productive parts were rum then oil for like 4 years before they left the middle east
>muh ottoman ITT
you bastards in the west are lucky you don't live in that shithole or in a neighboring country to these absolute subhumans, most of the morons from the middle-east on this website especially have severe megalomania and napoleon complex bullshit, your empire collapsed because of women, literal thots destroyed it to hell and every single turkish kid is taught in school of the vast and great ottoman empire as if it wasn't anything but barbaric and subhuman, with dire consequences on commerce, science, civic rights and freedom, civilization properity etc. It was a garbage pyramid scheme that relied on tributes and it collapsed in on itself because of how much they overspent on prostitutes.
>empire >rode around on horses collecting bribe money >massacred anyone who didn't give them money
hardly an empire, i'd say they're on par with somali warlords
curious what the opinions of the locals are in the places genghis khan invaded
like i learned about mongols and genghis khan from school but thats from thousands of miles away, the whole region was considered the mongol empire
What stopped them from going further into Europe?
woods
Poland
> Pooland
Lmao.
First time it was the Great Khan dying, the next time it was the Hungarians.
Poolish have done nothing throughout all.of history (scratch that they get good aces during Battle of Britain)
looks like someone is coping so hard
>poles have done nothing in history
They quite literally saved Europe from kebab in the IRL version of the Rohirrim charge in return of the king
the stench of unwashed europeans made them turn back
Mongols did not wash at all
Mongols were infamous in China for eating the intestine of their fallen horses without cleaning them, just pushing out the feces and swallowing them whole.
Not really, they met the border armies and did beat them but never managed to conquer major cities. Their only objective-heavy victories were to be found in the east.
>Mongols were infamous in China for eating the intestine of their fallen horses without cleaning them, just pushing out the feces and swallowing them whole.
>Hmmm an empire demonizing their enemy, I wonder if that would ever happen
Mongols and turks practically revered their horses , there's a reason why you can't even think of one without their horse
I’m constantly amazed at the sheer amount of knowledge about obscure topics on this board.
Learning has never been easier.
>obscure topics
Literally five minutes on wikipedia for this level of knowledge, you mongoloid
>you mongoloid
Sorry I don't speak mongonese...
Black person that's high school tier knowledge, unless you live in fatmerica of course
So maybe it was a symbolic gesture to eat the horse as much as is. It's just disgusting to us.
Their expedition into Europe at that time was by all definitions a vanguard with the rationale being to clean up the Cumans being sheltered by the Hungarian King. Something like 200k Hungarians died in this and their armies rode over the Polish wons. Conquest wasn't feasible after this and logistics were stretched. It would be difficult to provide for their horses.
later on the Polish and Hungarians did score significant victories against the later Mongol armies, despite said armies being larger
>tfw no Leszek the Black biopic
That was the exact image they wanted to portray and a damn effective one
Empire splintered into infighting after Ogodei
They carved Poland and Hungary 5 new buttholes in their first expedition
Genghis Khan died and they all had to go back to Mongolia on their first offensive
When they came back they had lost momentum and the leadership wasn't as strong
They still kept expanding but eventually conquering China broke them
Because the generals in Europe didn't want to obey the Khan on the Pacific coast
the one weakness mongols had was supply
they were stupidly mobile, could bypass forts, engage all battles when favorable to them only and disengage pretty much at will
BUT
to accomplish all of this, Mongols needed multiple horses per rider, which in turn needed to get fed
The issue with Europe, and this was unique to Europe, was that everything was fortified and decentralized
As such all the food needed to sustain their armies would be locked up behind the local fortification
And yes, Mongols were good siege engineers, or at least their Middle Eastern and European employed/captured siege engineers were
Problem is that, even if you know you can take down a fort it still takes a while and in Europe their would be a net-loss in taking forts or the much smaller cities
combine this with a plethora of woods, rivers and streams drastically cutting down their mobility and the fact there was no such thing as bypassing a line of fortifications to strike at an unprotected underbelly and the Mongols had nothing to gain by invading Europe proper, which is why they didn't
And why would they? China was a drastically larger prize for drastically less effort, same with the Middle East
There's also a theoretical factor in that massed crossbowmen combined with heavy cavalry in theory could have a favorable matchup against horse archer armies, but in practice, mongol generals were simply way better than european generals and so was their discipline
Thanks
oh and you might be wondering "well how did the mongols know this if they didn't invade europe"
reconnaissance and espionage was a critical aspect of their success and they would have been familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of europe before they ever invaded it
again, another aspect of what made the mongols so effective
There was also the added issue of their bows requiring a excessive amount of maintenance in the wet European climate. It was just way more realistic and profitable for them to turn their attention elsewhere.
>And yes, Mongols were good siege engineers, or at least their Middle Eastern and European employed/captured siege engineers were
But you can't get those experienced siege engineers to europe unless there where brought along originally. There's no telephones, no means to call up uncle TukTuk occupying Turkmenistan and have him send you a couple thousand experienced Persian slaves. That's why the logistics of an empire of that size is it's own fricking downfall, it's completely unsustainable. No possibility for the Chinese horde to know what the Europe horde is doing or needs, and visa versa.
Siege engineers were sent to Karakorum because they were valued above all other professions and were moved around the entire mongol empire with immense speed
Literally THE best way to survive a mongol assault was to say "I'm a siege engineer", they were never killed because they were that highly valued, even if the city was given the whole pyramid of skulls treatment
> no way of knowing what was going on
The Mongol messenger service was famous when during its own time you idiot.
A Mongol messenger, traveling from post station to post station, could deliver a messenger from one side of the empire to the other in something like 7 to 14 days. The dudes who ride a horse as hard as possible for, sound a horn as he got close to the post, and workers would ride out with a fresh horse, which he would jump on without stopping to keep rushing to the NEXT post.
It was better post than some fricking current '1st world' countries, like the UK, have today
Proff. Anon, giving a lesson in the only way he knows: the interesting way.
Thanks.
Good post
This is the first good explanation I've seen, the whole recall to Mongolia thing is complete bullshit and the Mongols were absolutely not prepared to keep sweeping across Europe.
its amazing to see a non meme, actual answer on Cinemaphile these days
one thing that should be noted
while they would likely not have invaded europe, without the recall it is entirely plausible they would have raided into europe following the victories in Poland
the Magyars were able to raid deep into Europe as a nomadic people before settling into Hungary
>the whole recall to Mongolia thing is complete bullshit and the Mongols were absolutely not prepared to keep sweeping across Europe.
it's called saving face. it's a good excuse so you don't look bad or like a failure
This is true, a lot of save faces in history are "it was just a raid/scout" or "we had to go back due to insert reason"
Historically raids always turn into full on invasions if they see the opportunity and it's very unlikely Ogodei's death reached Batu's location so quickly, it should have taken months for that message to be received.
mongols couldnt into temperate/humid weather or navy
they couldnt get farther south than modern day hanoi and were kicked out
you are partially right but the mongols never managed to successfully siege a stone castle, what is unique to Europe at the time was heavy cavalry and masonry/engineering. Nomadic skirmish tactics are defeated by castles (read:many castles) enough castles and you can constantly harass armies and their supply lines giving them no choice but to engage in siege warfare at which point they are subject to your heavy cav (also according to Friedrich mongols were scared of crossbows lol) which absolutely will crush them no matter what ridiculous horse archer memers think.
>There's also a theoretical factor in that massed crossbowmen combined with heavy cavalry in theory could have a favorable matchup against horse archer armies
horse archers are skirmishing units, the only reason they were successful is because slavs were dumb enough to overextend themselves in pursuit.
>but in practice, mongol generals were simply way better than european generals and so was their discipline
based on what? even hungarians stomped mongols in the first invasion with superior tactics and only lost due to bela being moronic.
white people?
Lack of suitable large plains to feed their horses beyond the Russian plains.
Turns out conquering a densely populated area with people that actually have fighting experience is much harder than raiding some villages in bumfrick nowhere
fighting experience was relatively irrelevant (also not quite true, middle eastern states had just as much experience as europe)
and so was densely populated, in fact the factor that made europe so tough for them was that it WASNT the most densely populated region in the world
Europe was decentralized, and THAT was it's strength, the dense decentralization was the unique factor of europe
Mongols conquered China tho.
China can't even win a civil war, they're just a history of being conquered and ruled over every few centuries, waiting in fear of the next catastrophic death toll.
So was the Roman, or the anglos, the Slavs. The japs spread rumors to divide and conquer, same way the little hat gangs doing to the whyte man.
That's their greatest hit though. Everyone cites it but it's their biggest thing. Mostly the Mongols are picking on nations not their size. And even then they took a while doing it. The southern Song lasted multiple Khans.
Conquer Korea? Sort of yes, but only after they were insanely numerically superior owning China at that point.
Conquer Japan? Failed multiple times.
Conquer India? Nah.
Conquer Persia? Yes, but it was right place right time as the empire was in crisis. The mongols didn't face true organized max strength resistance like China.
Conquer "Russia"? Only partly.
>Conquer "Russia"? Only partly.
The Golden Horde conquered Russia, changing Moscow culturally forever. Russians are asiatic, not europeans, culturally, barring dissimulations.
no. he said only partially and he means only partially. go back to /k/ and seeth glow Black person
lmao you are seething mongol moskal
>no u
keep crying, mongol.
>moar buzzwords, glow Black person
>everyone that hates Russia is a glowBlack person
I mean it's not a surprise your 2 days special operation failed with this level of delusion.
FYI Ivan - the 90s will look like heaven.
Pray for death, this, time, God willing, it's finally over.
>go back to /k/
>/k/ out of nothing
buckbroken
>buckbroken
use that buzzword for the Black folk
>The mongols didn't face true organized max strength resistance like China.
Not even China offered max strenght resistance because they were going through domestic issues due to decades of terribly incompetent imperial administration. (
)
If the last Song emperors were half-decent, maybe the mongols would never be able to conquer them.
You are vastly overestimating the 'fighting experience' of the europeans. Any fat homosexual can swing a sword in the direction of a dudes head. Stop watching movies, there was no Brad Pitts dual wielding claymores killing 400 dudes in a single battle.
they got bored
White people weren’t plains morons easily destroyed by a bunch of manlets on horseback, they’d have been slaughtered if they’d gone there. The only people capable of killing and colonizing whites were other whites. For such a political hotbed of war and violence it was always in house, so to speak.
implying mongols didn’t trounce russia, hungary and the crusader states
Russia is and always has been Nigeria with snow, they don't count as White
Caucasus mtns are in russia? whites are literally caucasians
It's a silly name, also they're in the part of "russia" that wasn't russian back then
the true russia is around moscow and that definitely is non-white
Russia wasn't as we know it today back then. Over half the country is native Asiatic.
The only reason Russia is the backward autocratic state we know it as today is entirely because of the Mongol Empire’s influence on it. The Republic of Novgorod for instance was a beacon of commerce and enlightenment during the Medieval period long before the Mongs showed up.
There’s no arguing that it was a white European state, no “lol Russian mongoloids”.
White are being colonized right now
Modern zogged white is completely different
Today its still a case of western elites exploiting the third world through neocolonialism, they've just decided to replace their own working class with people from those exploited countries because they're cheaper and useful to dissolve relics of the past like national identities which stand in the way of their global ambitions.
So in a way its not so much the fall of the west as it its transformation into something fully global.
>neocolonialism
>manlets on horseback
The mongal empire was shit by every definition.
Most of the land they occupied is empty, especially back then when the world's population was less than 500m.
They only conquered shitholes, eventually reaching Europe where they inflected damage but only by using huge numbers of slave solders, and they still fricking lost.
They couldn't even defeat the Japanese, Indians or the Arabs.
Easily one of the most overrated empire in history, pushed forward by woke "we wuz khun" chinks.
>They couldn't even defeat the Japanese
They were unable to conquer Japan because typhoons you moron, otherwise the nips would have been raped to death by the golden horde
Possibly.
I'm not a weab by any means, or
, but Japan isn't exactly terrain suitable for Mongolian cavalry tactics. It's a mountainous series of Islands, not the open steppes on which the hordes horses thrive, I think the horde would have to end up resorting to dismounted infantry tactics a lot of the time to take individual defended jap cities.
And the mongols where fricking awful at at sieges, they needed chinese slaves to build siege equipment for them, which they would have, but still, logistics of it all. I just don't see it working out for them
>mongols where fricking awful at at sieges,
No, they weren't. They were quite good at it.
while they probably could have beaten japan because they were (read:are) moronic autists they still lost what few engagements they had with them
one of the dumbest comments this year. My goodness dude just say you don't know shit about the Mongol empire and be done with it. First mongol contact with euro countries was completely one sided euros got destroyed. The only reason the mongole empire didn't go further into Europe is because the khan died and they had to debate on who who'd be the next leader.
europe was pretty shit at the time compared to the middle east and china anyway and central asia wasn't empty until that Black person timur murdered everyone
depends on how you describe shit
Middle East had much more centralized large cities which were easier to loot
but standard of life for the average person in Europe was higher than the Middle East
>we wuz khun chinks
American education
They didn’t give a frick about Europe
posers
israeli subversion was forced on taking out Byzantium, Western Europe was at max strength.
we beat their asses
Their leader died and Egypt and China were richer places to conquer.
The Japanese beat them fair and square, even without the typhoons.
Most of the land they conquered was empty, Europe wasn't so could actually fight them back
Persia and China had no excuse though, they just can't fight for shit.
Persia and China were far wealthier and stronger than Europe at the time.
I remember the records of some Italian about the military strength of world powers a few centuries after the Mongol invasions.
It was more or less like this:
The King of France had 60k soldiers.
The King of Aragon 25k
The King of Castile 35k
The King of England 25k
The ruler of Persia had 200k
wealthier yes, stronger not necessarily
French heavily cavalry basically tore holes through middle eastern armies
Also remember that the king of France didn't really have that much power, if you combined the army of all of France you definitely had something far larger
In the time I'm talking about, France was already reasonably centralized. And stronger than in the Mongol era, comparatively.
ah much later on
in that case, well that era Persia did have large armies but European armies were much much better in quality
60k high morale, well trained, soldiers are far more valuable than 200k conscripts
I really doubt at any given moment any non white was stronger than the white man.
each time they tried to invade europe, they were called back to monoglia because the khan died. then after that they were too busy fighting each other
Jews
Logistics problems from the Steppe ending and forest beginning (their animals need to graze) combined with stone castles being really efficient fortifications.
The Mongols had a lot of experience taking large fortified cities. Taking 100 small highly defensible stone forts was new to them and it wasn't easy.
The succession struggle of the Mongols which why Batu Khan stopped his armies to participate in the Great Khan elections. Also the Mongol empire was too big for the Middle Ages and it quickly splintered after the death of Ögedei.
didnt they literally frick georgia with a fricking scouting party tier unit and then when they did decide to come frick yurop the leader at the time (maybe genghis) died so they turned around and went home - yurop literally being a single death away from getting overrun and dickslapped
in your fantasy yeah
White Supremacy.
Because the Mongols got their shit pushed in anytime they weren't raiding farms and small villages. Same reason they couldn't take India or the Middle East. The Romanians in particular would literally capture Mongol men and buck break them. They were seen as monsters because they would hunt them in the woods.
>what about China
Most of mainland China was empty. All the strongholds were on the coast.
>Middle East
They absolutely annihilated the Mideast.
You're a fricking idiot
Europe is unbeatable. Same reason Anglos rule the world while Mongolians are just drunk peasants now.
And yet in 20 years Mongolia will still be Mongolia while Europe will be Africa 2.0
70% of all mongols live in China are are forcefully forgetting heir heritage and bred out of existence
The kings of Hungary building loads of castles. They were not really able to carry out lengthy siege warfare so far away from their bases of power. Their invasions of Poland and Hungary were basically huge chevauchées where they tried to devastate the countryside as much as possible rather than actual attempts to take and hold ground.
>The invasion was repelled handily, and the Mongols lost much of their invading force due to several months of starvation, numerous small raids, and two major military defeats. This was mostly thanks to the new fortification network and the military reforms. No major invasion of Hungary would be launched after the failure of the campaign of 1285
A few decades was all it took for Europeans to adapt and completely destroy the mongols. Fricking pathetic
Hungary won the second invasion due to building castles but all the actual european countries (hungary were nomadic settlers) were already heavily castled, the mongols never had a chance at invading the european heartland.
>hungary were nomadic settlers
Anon, hungarians stopped being nomadic a long time before that. LONG time.
You are overall correct in your post but come the frick on.
sure but they werent operating with european strategy
No anon, open a book you fricking Black person.
?
>people think mongols dominated the knights and castles of euros and the west somehow had to adapts to just fight off the mongols specifically
>they were actually defeated by the heavy knights and castles of euros
I dunno if this is supposed to be a counterpoint but yes. the mongols successes against the outer edge of europe were due to them not using actual european strat/tact and luck/incompetence
They couldn’t get past
they spent like 12 years just fighting the chinks which was the only actual real country they ever conquered. they couldnt take anything else but were annoying enough to the greeks that they paid them to frick off. they may as well rode north and claimed all the uninhabited snow wastes to their "empire" to brag about size. their battle success in europe was because they came completely out of left field from the fog of war with giant doom stacks. once euros got the measure of them they beat them off no problem
>the only actual real country they ever conquered.
The Khwarazm was more than just a country. It was very populated in antiquity up to that period.
You forget it because they killed 90% of its people.
Jesus.
Didn't a Hungarian king completely wipe the floor with these guys despite the fact that his country was absolutely annihilated by the Mongols just a very short time earlier?
So you're telling me a country obliterated by genocide and destruction was able to completely turn things around in the span of a single human life and crush the mongols, but we're all supposed to think they ever ad a chance of conquering Europe?
Holt frick the Chinese and Persians must have been pathetic back then
>Didn't a Hungarian king completely wipe the floor with these guys despite the fact that his country was absolutely annihilated by the Mongols just a very short time earlier?
actually from what i remember reading about it, hungarians completely dominated the mongols to such an overwhelming extent in their round 2 that the king and his army wasnt able to fully engage the mongols before his own vassals and minor lords totally crushed them which lead to a crisis in the kingdom because people started to ask what they really needed the king for if they can protect themselves. in the interim between the first and second invasion all his vassals had built up their armies so strong by recruiting heavy knights and building castles that they didnt need the kings army anymore
Reminds me of USA a little bit with the 2A. Bet the king had an "oy vey the goyim know" moment
The chinese are pretty infamously terrible at warfare, historically.
You have to wonder about their modern state of mind in regards to it. Part of them is eager to shake off the label, and the other part fears they'll fail like their ancestors did for thousands of years.
>he Chinese and Persians must have been pathetic back then
pretty much
they still are today
Iran almost just fell apart because some bawd dodnt wear a hijab
>glowBlack person coup fails yet again
those g-trannies just arent made of the right stuff anymore
glowie support yo-yod
at first they wanted to happen until they realized it was only non persians fighting
they were like the legion in new vegas
a powerful army that will steamroll everything in its path, but no functioning nation underneath, just a bunch of slaves and rapebabies, a nation begins with family, all they did was shove the fromerly conquered into adhoc administrative roles, Mongols were bickering easily offended grudgeholding literal steppe savages, the second ghengis died it was a slow death of bickering in fighting
Japs and Reconquista
Castles, not much you can do if people just retreat into castles and you rely on mobility and horses to attack and win.
That would be the British Empire friend.
I enjoyed Mongol, it wasn't a very good movie though.
I always thought it would be kino if there was a TV series about the mongols where every season was a different civilization dealing with them. You could have the first season about Genghis Khan conquering the other tribes along the steppe, then there could be a season about the mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty in China, a season about the attempted invasion of Japan and the subsequent Kamikaze, all the way up to their assault into Eastern Europe and eventual collapse.
Oh really anon, ALWAYS? You popped out of the womb with big plans of a historical TV series about Mongols? Frankly I find that hard to believe.
you are not funny
That was funny. It made me chuckle more than Barry and Paul. Anyway , historical anthology shows are shit, it wouldn't work.
If this was really an Empire, then who enforced the taxes and laws?
Gengkis Khan.
It was said that a woman could walk from one end of the empire to the other with a pot of gold on her head completly unmolested, such was the resspec and fear of the khan. This was said by the kwarezmian writers, their mortal enemies.
>largest empire
>80% of it is desert wastelands
Also, this is not accurate. By the time Kublai conquered China the Mongols broke apart in 4 different kingdoms
Should be noted that the conquest of Song China wasn't set in stone
In theory they had everything needed to mount a successful defense
Except that the Song rulers were paranoid morons who purposely killed every single person with anything resembling military acumen, and constantly swapped what sub-par commanders they had around to prevent the armies from having any loyalty to them
Which worked to prevent internal rebellion, but the Mongols just steamrolled all over them because they were "that" incompetent
That the Mongols had god-tier generals, in large part due to their culture rewarding military expertise and being highly meritocratic in this aspect
>Except that the Song rulers were paranoid morons who purposely killed every single person with anything resembling military acumen, and constantly swapped what sub-par commanders they had around to prevent the armies from having any loyalty to them
Had the Dragon Emperor been a competent man, history could have turned out very differently than it did.
>Emperor Duzong ignored his duties and instead delegated all state and military affairs to the hands of Jia Sidao; the emperor instead indulged in drinking, women, and lived in opulence
>The Mongols had spent decades harassing the Song Empire's borders and were on the verge of conquering the whole of China. Emperor Duzong however, ignored this problem instead choosing to drink and indulging in sex because when Duzong heard that Xiangyang was being besieged by Mongol troops, Duzong asked Jia Sidao "I hear that Xiangyang had been besieged by the Yuan troops for several years. Is this true?" in which Jia said in all seriousness "Well, I haven't heard such a thing." Duzong replied with "A palace maid told me this."[6]
>Lu Wenhuan sent a messenger to Emperor Duzong, to request immediate reinforcements to defend Xiangyang. The messenger successfully got by the Yuan forts and reached the emperor but upon hearing the effectiveness of these new trebuchets, the emperor considered Xiangyang lost and did not send reinforcements. The decisive Battle of Xiangyang was fought in 1274 when the Mongols succeeded in capturing and destroying the last Song stronghold. The loss of Xiangyang sealed the fate of the Song dynasty and the news of its capture was deliberately hidden from Emperor Duzong by Jia Sidao.
it's also quite interesting to note that these trebuchets were middle eastern/european designs (both were in an arms race with each other and internally on this) and both in both aspects of siege warfare, offense and defense, China was almost hopelessly outdated
Somehow this gets misrepresented too often, as if China was more advanced in this than them, usually with some vague mention of "gunpowder"
But the counterweight trebuchet was legit a superweapon as far as China was concerned and a standard feature of western/middle eastern warfare
They would never be able to conquer a significant portion of Europe even if the Khan didn't die.
It was not much of an empire, more like just a mass plundering. Mongols pretty much had no interest in establishing an actual empire. The Turkic cultures they conquered in the steppe eventually became the identity of the empire because of this. The Golden Horde converted to Islam after Turkification and they eventually became various khagnates and caliphates.
Unless you wanted a movie about people getting raped and murdered en masse it would be pretty boring.
Euro-Iranian-Turkish-chinese-russian disinformation.
That's exactly the kind of movie I want to watch
Bongs had a larger empire that spanned all 7 continents. Mongols are in the running for the largest contiguous empire though
>spends all day every day having sex
>have sex, ince-*rapes you*
>Wife has another mans son
>Knocks up hundreds of women across the continent in revenger
Was he the worlds greatest cuckold?
>Biggest, most important european state for basically all the middle ages
>Survived 10 times as long as that lame Mongol "empire"
>Happenings, science and great men that shaped the fate of the world
0 kinos, explain
there are plenty of movies about Brits though
forgot picrel
Greeks dont make movies
Because greeks weren't actually that important
>Because greeks weren't actually that important
Baffling opinion. Most important people in world history and it's not even close. No other people can even be considered. All of technology originates in Greek philosophy. Roman law, our inheritance, also Greek. The new testament, the founding text of the world's biggest religion, Greek.
>Baffling opinion. Most important people in world history and it's not even close. No other people can even be considered. All of technology originates in Greek philosophy. Roman law, our inheritance, also Greek. The new testament, the founding text of the world's biggest religion, Greek.
If you're of Greek ancestry. You already know the truth, and dont need to brag no defend your heritage. History, and Scholars around the world agree, so dont waste your breathe.
i guess it is also because of their lack of a real succesor state: everyone in that area has their own nationalistic history to shill. The greeks can go "muh athens, muh alexander" the bulgarians "muh khan" the turks "muh suleiman" the serbs "they deseved it" ect. None identify as 100% heirs to byzantium so nobody cares.
Imagine the nationalistic shilling on boards like Cinemaphile and /misc/ if a smal part of the empire had survived and made it into a nation, they wouldnt be able to ever shut up about how amazing they were back in the day...
stop calling us the byzantine empire we are THE. ROMAN. EMPIRE.
>you don't rule rome
CONSTANTINOPLE IS BETTER THAN ROME. IT'S LIKE A SUPER ROME.
byzantines are asiatic subhumans, romans went extinct ages before
It’s a crime that Belisarius still didn’t get a quality movie. He defeated the Persians stopping an almost unstoppable invasion with only his fearsome reputation, Vandals and Goths and practically reconquered the Roman Empire.
>Belisarius
basedlisarius
also make it clear just how utterly lucky Justinian was to have him, because all things considered, Justinian was a pretty bad emperor who simply lucked into having the empire at it's wealthiest and most stable as inheritance (yes it got unstable under him, but that was his bloody fault, Nika was a failure on his part)
When Justinian regretted not conquering Italy he gave a huge army to Narses, another of his capable subordinates, so the eunuch crushed the Franks with remaining Ostrogoths and returned Italy under the Byzantine control.
Justinian's conquest of Italy was so half assed he turned it into a wasteland and in the process sacrificed his eastern defenses so much the Persians could raid some of his most valuable provinces for years
Not only that but his exploits drained the coffers completely and his bungled diplomacy meant that continuous wars with Persia were inevitable
and all that when the conquest of the Ostrogothic state wasn't necessary, they were in an active romanization process
All he had to do was keep their client-status and keep supporting loyal rulers and eventually they would have been either valuable allies or just straight up integrated more and more
The people in the lands he (re)conquered loved him and wanted him to rule as their king instead of Emperor Justinian because he was so merciful, just and benevolent to the people.
He was certainly one of a kind and if he was the Roman Emperor things could have turned out very differently than it did a thousand years later.
basically this
also the byzantium is not very popular to the wider audience as the roman empire
>tfw you will never see a massed cataphract charge on the silver screen
Heavy cavalry/armored cavalry charges are always so kino. I edge to the Scots Greys and Ney's charge in Waterloo to sleep
Don't jinx it, I don't wanna see Socrates fight Thanatos in the next capeshit
What is “Mongol”?
Because CCP controls film industry
they actually are really still butthurt about that IRL
imagine if the chinese were in the slave trade, youd never hear the end of it
Everyone knows about the John Wayne movie but no one ever mentions the Omar Sharif one. It's at least a bit better and slightly historical, showing the invasion of China for example. Also the mongol horde is apparently a happy multicultural group consisting of whites, blacks and led by an Egyptian.
>Also the mongol horde is apparently a happy multicultural group consisting of whites, blacks and led by an Egyptian.
Genghis and most of his successors were famously pro-multiculturalism. There were half a dozen languages spoken in his court and he adopted advisors from every society they conquered.
>why no kinos
Kinos are made only about what americans find interesting. This generally means
1) historically they like to larp as part of (romans/ greeks)
2) history they can use to justify their society (crusades)
3) very modern history, obsessing over wwii in particular
I listen to Dan Carlin's podscasts when I work out. One that stuck in my mind is the Wrath of the Khans, specifically the conquest of China. I remember him quoting the records from the Muslim diplomats en route to the capital of China to seek new powerful ally on the continent and them instead finding a land so soaked with human fat that they couldnt tread ground and a pyramid of skulls obscuring the city walls, their menial workers falling sick from pleague from the over-present corpses and their more literate kin who thought they were to meet a civilization so ahead of theirs they might as well be gods, only to realize said gods were already conquered and slaughtered by another civilization they had never even heard of...imagine the horror. Imagine the foreshadowing of what was to come in mere years.
thing is though
China was not a god and unbeknownst to either of them, the Middle east and Europe had already surpassed them in certain aspects
>the Middle east and Europe had already surpassed them in certain aspects
The Jurchen Jin in the north were less developed and pretty much barbarians as well in the eyes of the Han chinese in the south, they were also the ancestors of the Manchu that would eventually conquer China proper in the 1600 and establish the Qing Dynasty.
The Song, however, were almost certainly better than europeans in nearly every way. They were very developed and ushered a golden age in China that made the average chinese at the time, richer than the average european. In fact, the Song-era was the last time in history that the chinese had a better GPD per capita and higher standard of living than europeans. Mongols destroyed all of that.
>The Song, however, were almost certainly better than europeans in nearly every way.
Metallurgy, animal husbandry, siege engineering, architecture
all aspects in which Europe was superior
Also no the average chinese was not richer, the upper classes lived better lives, by far, that's true, but the best place to be a peasant, around the time of the mongol invasions, was europe
Bes tplace to he a peasant at those times was probably in Baghdad
oh no, frick no
remember Baghdad had an immense slave population and middle eastern slaves had it terrible
Europe on the other hand, specifically western europe, had no slavery, both France and the HRE had outlawed the practice
Cities also were cesspools of disease and poverty, when the medieval european peasant was relatively healthy and had a surprisingly varied diet
Not only that but contrary to popular belief, but local lords were not tyrannical, they had a vested interest in keeping their population happy since they had so much less of them and in europe, due to the decentralized nature, peasants could actually pack up and leave to a conveniently recently established village in a neighboring lord's territory
>peasants could actually pack up and leave
only with your ~~*lords*~~ permission yurocuck
The Mongols fricked Baghdad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)
They even put one of the Muzzie leaders in a rug and trampled him to death with their horses (shedding royal blood was bad or something)
Really underrated moment in history. Really set Islam back a ton.
If it didn't happen maybe muslims would not be violent savages as well today
Muzzies definitely deserved it too
>the eponymous Order of Assassins tried two assassinations against the Mongols, failed, had their Grand Master executed by them and were then totally destroyed after nearly 200 years of existence
KWAB
Before his conquest of Jin China Genghis was in contact with Muslim merchants who wanted to establish trade connections with China, but at that time China was very protective so they gained his trust and sold him information to spur on his invasion. Ironic considering the ruin he would lay on trade capitals of the muslim world like Bokhara and Kharkand.
Nothing good ever came out of Central Asia, only primitive, violent barbarians that set human civilization back hundreds of years every time they happened to have a competent leader who led them out of the steppes.
Dan Carlin is completely full of shit
Go to bed Ken, your just still hoes mad his WW1 series is better than your civil and vietnam war ones.
It’s funny because Genghis wanted to establish peace and trade with the neighboring Kwazarmid Caliphate and sent a diplomatic mission there but they thought they were durkadur savage barbarian infidels and slaughtered them all and it enraged Genghis so much he invaded and destroyed Central Asia so bad it demographically still hasn’t recovered and went on further to destroy Bagdad and kill over a million people and the only thing that stopped the mongols going further was the desert who the Egyptian mamluks used against them. Had it not been for that one emissary group being killed the sudden decline of the islamic world never would have happen and history would have been irreparably altered.
They were irredeemable c**ts and they would conquer civilizations by genociding anybody that opposed them down to the last child. There is no way to paint them as hero characters in any way so it could only be a depressing movie where innocent people are slaughtered and that's not something that brings in a box office
>he hasnt watched Marco Polo
>so bad it killed the entire cast
I love how absolutely no one had the same accent in the entire cast.
there are so much horses can do when not in an open field
europe is anything but open fields my friend
Europe had plenty of open fields, most forests had been cut down already
problem was reaching them without having supply issues
>there is a 15% chance that you are the offspring of Geniks Khan
I do not know how to handle this feel
if you arent turkic, arab or asian then you are almost definitely not.
>turkic
Lmao this anon probably says Latinx too
what word am i supposed to use to refer to turkish and steppe people i dont know any slurs for them
Turkroach is the word you’re looking for
>latinx
That one subverts someones culture and tries to erase it. So it is more racist and I encourage more people to use it.
Sorry, turkx
you know turkic and turkish arent the same thing right?
moronic Black person lol
I am amazed by the level of stupidity of people here.
Turkish = from the republic of Turkey, speaking their language
Turkic = of one of the many turk ethnicities, they also look very different from each other.
moron. You utter, fricking moron.
Europeans have a bigger chance of being descendant from Charlemagne than being descendant from Genghis Khan
It's everyone else who got fricked
what if im finnish
People always seem to forget SteppeBlack folk 2: Electric Boogaloo in Seljuks and Ottomans
Seljuks came first
Ottomans were not steppeBlack folk, they were Greekaboos, then interbred with them aggressively
Turks are basically muslim greeks
>Ottomans were not steppeBlack folk, they were Greekaboos, then interbred with them aggressively
??????????
homie learn history and numbers
Otoomans are seljuks
Ottomans had nothing special going on with greeks, they were just another people they ruled over and even then the numbers of greeks were an extremely marginal amount compared to the turks OR any of the other dozens of nations and people they conquered
There's nothing similar culturally either, I don't get this post
homie, read up on your actual history
They didn't invade some empty bit of land, Anatolia was heavily populated with greeks, and while the nobles fled in advance of the Seljuks, the commoners stayed behind and became the core lower class of Rum and later the Ottomans
hell not even all the nobles fled, TONS of nobles mentioned later have blatant Greek names
Greeks were not a marginal account, it were the TURKS who were a marginal amount, their migration was not that large
Look again at what the core territories of the early Ottomans were, they coastal regions, which were almost entirely greek
Ottomans even moved their capital as far west as they could because they were THAT big greekaboos and almost the entire ottoman style of rulership is copy pasted from the Byzantine empire
Hell even look at the name the anatolian seljuks had: Rum
They considered themselves god damn ROMANS
>Greeks were not a marginal account, it were the TURKS who were a marginal amount, their migration was not that large
Anon the pure amount of commoner nomads entering anatolia before ottomonas were a thing were already in the fricking millions
>Look again at what the core territories of the early Ottomans were, they coastal regions, which were almost entirely greek
You are a legit uneducated Black person by this point, look at how ottomans were formed. Seljuks turned into multiple big clans in anatolia and ottomans were the ones that happened to be on the western side
>Ottomans even moved their capital as far west as they could because they were THAT big greekaboos and almost the entire ottoman style of rulership is copy pasted from the Byzantine empire
You're just fricking posting shit you don't know anything about, the frick anon
No, turks did not fricking use the late byzantine rulership in any shape or fricking form
The way they spread and vassalized was much closer to older romans and not even close enough this comparison to matter
>Hell even look at the name the anatolian seljuks had: Rum
?????
Rum is literally a turkish word that means greek living in certain lands, it never, ever fricking referred to turks
Not gonna bother replying to another post when this Black person probably takes his Cinemaphile knowledge from facebook frog and wohjachksposters
Mate, even as late as the year 1900 the coastal regions were dominated by people who were greek entirely
All DNA tests on commoner turks show they have a massive amount of greek heritage today, and that's before the genocides of the 20th century against people with too much greek heritage
Ottoman bureaucracy was almost entirely Byzantine in nature, hell they even explicitly used educated greeks in that role, and yes they moved their capital as close west as they could, and then moved it to Constantinople and yes it's Constantinople because the Ottomans CALLED IT THAT
Konstantinye to be accurate but this whole Istanbul stuff is pure Ataturk
The nomads that entered Anatolia during the aftermath of Manzikert were a minority and even later migrations did not displace or wipe out the local populations
It's only in the anatolian highlands that a majority Turk population was established but those were sparsely populated
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about
moron. Turkic ancestry reaches up to 40% in coastal areas. Speros Vryonis himself estimates majority of the rural areas were deserted with the onslaught of the Turks in the 13th century. 20% of Turkey was nomadic until the 18th century, and this is despite Ottomans following a strict sedentarization policy against the nomadic Turcomans. You don't know what you're talking about.
note that reads medieval turkic ancestry, greek ancestry is separate from this, which is what's wrong with the story and why it's manipulative
>moron. Turkic ancestry reaches up to 40% in coastal areas.
I have to ask for a source because afaik the highest % is just BEFORE the sea and never above 25%, usually around 15%
Then explain to me why Turkey in all its ancient glory has been completely and irrevocably irrelevant since the 1600s, turning into a literal authoritarian joke today.
Hey, I was looking into something like this basically last night. Because I am a believer now in the Altaic Language family theory (not linguist or qualified to believe this) which postulates that Mongolian and Turkish are related language by an older common language. Realized I don't really know much about "Turks", the Seljuks, and their connection to other "turkic" peoples like the Kazakhs.
"Old" Seljuks looked asian (just like CK III tells us). You look at a not-Russian Kazakh today and you have an idea of what an OG Turk Sultan looked like before they started breeding with Balkanites and Greeks. Just look at their art from the Seljuk Empire period that proceeds Rum and Turk golden period on the western fringes.
Old Oghuz before they converted to Islam were partying around the Aral Sea. Take a look at the kind of people that still live there. Maybe genetically they are still (seljuk) "Turk" but it's pretty obvious some heavy interbreeding has been happening since the days of Rum, which at least changed the phenotype look of the common "Turk."
>before they started breeding with Balkanites and Greeks.
When they reached anatolia they already bred with iranic people in the very least, anon.
I mean the frickin anatolian nomads can have blonde people you don't find as much on the coasts.
>Rum is literally a turkish word that means greek living in certain lands, it never, ever fricking referred to turks
I'm not the anon you were talking to but you're obviously trying to use some semantic nonsense instead of an actual argument.
The Sultanate of Rum was called that because the turks considered that land Rome and it's greek inhabitants, romans. Your bullshit semantics miss the point entirely.
After Constantinople fell Mehmed II created for himself the title Kaiser-i-Rüm, which literally means Caesar of Rome.
Turks are shitskins though.
Just saw this last night and it was pretty kino:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47_(2020_film)
https://tubitv.com/movies/655379/ak-47-kalashnikov
>largest empire in the history of mankind
The Mongol Empire is the largest CONTIGUOUS empire in the history of mankind, the largest empire in general in the history of mankind was the British Empire. Even so, my most favourite empire of all time was the Mongol Empire. Genghis Khan was a total chad.
Han pride
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_King_Gesar
Bene Geserit from dune is a reference to that
I was born and grew in Buryatia, that's part of Russia neighboring modern Mongolia
I saw fire pits on top of mountains that was a part of signalling system used by military in that Mongol Empire era. Just some holes in the rocks, really, but they were eerie and unusual.
I moved from that place 10 years ago but still missing that empty wilderness.
I bet the open skies are amazing to be in
they are, fren
Mongolians are total bros, they chill and happy to help you should you have any trouble
it's easy to get lost and die during winters season in Mongolia so people there are watching each other's back
>Mongol expansion towards Europe stops near Finland
Ebin :DD
The Roman Empire and the Empire of Alexander the Great never conquered Finland either. Neither did the British Empire.
Well why the hell would Alexander go North when the center of the world was the Middle East? The British also had no reason to invade some random frozen backwater during their reign so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
They were just afraid of the Suomish warrior.
>Sweden with Finland = empire
>Russia with Finland = empire
Finland is the key to all this
>can't even conquer a bunch of spurdos
>cope by going to the middle east
kek what a b***h
"Finland" was stuck in the stone age at that time
>can't even beat people stuck in the stone age
Wow, mongol army very strong
Pretty sure the British, Spanish and French Empires all mogged that
There's no need to speculate, just measure the area. Brits>Mongols>rest
Mongols reached Poland around 1250, Europe did not have plate armor, guns, or heavy cavalry yet. We would have been completely fricked. That is nuts we could all be yellow if they kept going.
>or heavy cavalry yet
Europe had heavy cavalry since before the first crusade anon
I mean more like 13th-century-onward Cuirassier style cavalry specifically, at that point Europe could have fricked anyone on the planet. I don't think crusades-era heavy cavalry would have been able to do much against mongol horses.
12th century French knights, if fully equipped and ready would utterly demolish anything the mongols had, if they could reach them, and mongol bows would have major issues hurting them
We have accounts of horse archers (granted, these were turks not mongols) who got caught by european knights and it was a one-sided massacre
European horses were far larger, stronger and faster, what they lacked was long distance endurance, but in a charge they were effectively unstoppable
Problem against the Mongols would not have been in theoretical capabilities, but rather in terms of discipline and leadership
Mongols were masters of feigned retreats and Europeans would charge after them 9 out of 10 times, which would lead to them getting tired and then caught when separated from their infantry
Same thing with european crossbowmen, if equipped with pavise shields, they're pretty much hardcounters to horse archers
but there was simply no way they could force horse archers into such a confrontation
but if a competently led western european army could force a mongol army into a direct confrontation, and both commanders were of equal skill, they would come out on top the vast majority of time
just, pure theoretical, because there was really no way to accomplish that
We were not that much more advanced than the Arabs we were fighting in the crusades, who the Mongols were crushing around 1250. I don't think it would have been as much of a sweep as you are saying. European militaries didn't really have technical and tactical superiority until the late 14th century. I don't think Pavise shields were even used for another century at the time the Mongols would have been able to invade Europe.
remember that technology was not linear back then, different regions of the world were advanced in different ways
European horses were the only ones in the world capable of fulfilling a true heavy cavalry role, this wasn't because Europe was magically more advanced than anyone (they weren't) but rather because of centuries of selective breeding because european wars favored that kind of horse, while middle-eastern horses were bred for different purposes
same with mongol horses
and these warhorses were highly prized and strictly controlled, it wasn't simple to acquire them and definitely almost impossible to set up an independent series of stud farms
true Pavise was not used but stationary shields were used by crossbowmen, and in general, crossbowmen are favored over horse archers because they have larger effective reach and much higher density, if you can get them in a battle where the nomadic forces won't just "nope" out
it's also why often mixing horse archers with infantry armies tended to be a dud, without the strategic mobility of nomadic armies, they lose a lot of their effectiveness
What use is heavy cavalry without plate armor when you are against a larger horse army? Mongol bows could definitely penetrate European armor at the time, especially what most people were equipped with.
You have a point about crossbows, but weren't crossbows of similar quality in use in China when the Mongols conquered them? I am fairly certain the Han dynasty had crossbows on par with what the Italians were using.
No, Chinese crossbows were shitty. Italian ones were leagues ahead. Same thing happened with guns as well, Chinese came up with them but Italians quickly outperformed them.
European armor around that era absolutely could stand up against composite bows, mongol bows had about the same draw weight of muslim bows (though were much more suited for mounted use) and crusaders were described as finishing their charge covered entirely with arrows, completely unharmed, by muslim accounts
European crossbows were higher draw weight than Chinese at this era, though the Chinese did have more than sufficiently advanced crossbows to be more than a match for the Mongols
but as pointed out earlier, the reason for the Song's defeat was not their military capabilities, it was that Song actively and intentionally had destroyed their army's ability to function
They had effectively zero experienced commanders and had less than zero generational experience due to the execution of every general with even a bit of talent
ontop of that Song troops had ludicrously low morale and discipline, again, intentionally
given competent leadership the Song could have stood up to the mongols, zero doubt about that, but the Mongols had god tier generals, and god tier discipline and morale
And as I pointed out the crossbowmen vs horse archers was in a vacuum, there was just no way to force that encounter against mongols
crossbows are complete shit unless they have steel springs, didn't exist back then, just shitty corkscrew garbage
even mere gambeson is enough to stop arrows anon the bow generally isnt aimed directly at you and even if it can in ideal circumstances penetrate it has to penetrate with enough force to kill/disable you not just tickle your nips
>even mere gambeson is enough to stop arrows
MASSIVE over-generalization.
dont @ me bowcuck
>in a charge they were effectively unstoppable
They were severely ineffective against proper infantry. Cavalry never "charged" head-on, historically speaking: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326651393_Combat_Training_for_Horse_and_Rider_in_the_Early_Middle_Ages
As for Turks, they were very effective against light armored Crusaders, but Seljuk bows which had lower draw weights couldn't pierce through Franco-Norman armors. Hence the reason you have various descriptions of Crusaders looking like porcupines after battling Turks. Ottoman, Mamluk and Mongol bows on the other hand were 40-50lb heavier and would have been were very effective against full plated French knights as per historical records (14th-15th century Ottoman-European wars). I doubt Mongols would have been very effective if they were to attempt a full scale invasion after their first one however. Their tactics were already becoming antiquated in the Middle East and Mamluk style training proved superior. The rapidness in which motte and bailey forts were being transformed into the concentric castles during the late 13th century wouldn't help them either.
early middle ages though
and while I agree with you that the primary use of a cavalry charge was to break the morale, however 12th century european heavy cavalry was unique in that it was actually capable of a frontal charge if needed, and was unique in that
early medieval cavalry was the precursor to this
(got cut off too early sorry)
While mongol bows would have been capable of penetration, it would not have been consistent
After all the english longbow was not capable of penetrating the armor of french knights on a consistent basis either, though admittedly most encounters between the 2 were 13th century rather than 12th
It's likely that Parthian shot, even with Mongol bows, would not have been truly effective and taking careful aim straight on would have been a gamble that they could stop the cavalry before it reached them
because while charges into infantry were rare, heavy cavalry charging into light cavalry if capable, was a common tactic (though risky because light cavalry would try to disengage if able)
Bodkins were able to penetrate French armors from up close thoughever. So were the Turkish arrows, which had smaller diameter and unlike the English longbow tactics they would close up until 20-30 meters from the enemy line and pullback while doing a caracole.
true but getting that close range was still a gamble, and even then not guaranteed
you're counting on taking out enough knights before they reach you that they withdraw, because when they're within melee range of you, a single knight will likely take out multiple of your archers
But they did, anon. Frequently! It was the essence of steppe tactics-- harass the enemy from distance with lighter horses until they are broken and follow up with a shock charge. It worked very well until the advent of firearms; if you count Eastern European uhlans/hussars etc., it worked for in fact even longer-- And I am aware they were not horse archers but light cavalry harassment tactics were developed in the Euro-Ottoman/Tartar frontier, and were obviously a continuation of the steppe cavalry tactics. It's also why Eastern Euros were historically light armored.
true but it was not guaranteed those would work, heavy cavalry could and did catch up to horse archers
you're just describing the concept of skirmishing, it only works as a primary battle tactic if your enemy is moronic. if they arent they recognize superior mobility/logistics and dont engage in the first place and neither does the side with the initiative.
>be Mongols
>promise to not kill anyone if city surrenders
>city surrenders
>kill every single person
Wdtmbt?
>city surrenders
>kill every single person
>wait around on the outskirts for 3 days
>anyone concealing themselves during the massacres assumes the coast is clear
>kill them
>now everyone really is dead
They were insanely cruel.
it's also sort of hilarious how much both muslims and leftwing idiots harp about the Crusades
when, by the standards of the day, Crusade conquests were among the LEAST damaging
Since Hollywood is pretty much dead already, Ghost of Tsushima.
Someone post the real map that includes Finland please I don't even
Whites and israelites don't want to make movies about them
They shatter the eurocentric delusion they have going on. That european peoples were at the mercy of Asians and Arabs and others at some points of history. That their current hegemony is possibly just a brief fart.
Which is you should fear Finngolia.
I'm Golden Horde.
These are kazakhs tho. Mongrils are too short and fragile sisses and still seething over kazchads living on their land
mongol and kazakhs are both steppe people, and a lot of mongol empire cities were up in the kazakh
turks were the core of mongol empire. mongols just took all credit but in fact they're nobodies then they're nobodies now. and genghis khan was a kazakh
>mongolcels talking about brief empires
oh i am laffin
>No Battle of Kulikovo kino
Weak
Just play a Khuzait playthrough on Bannerlord.
John Milius stroked out before he could complete his Genghis Khan movie.
What the frick is an empire even? You barge into a city state, murder a bunch of people, take a bunch of shit, leave one of your inbred sons behind to harass the locals while you’re gone, and go to the next city state to ransack. Then you come back after 2 years to check up on the place and do the same thing. Mad empire you have there.
Empires that never conquered Finland
- Alexander
- Roman
- Byzantine
- Carolingian
- Ottoman
- French
- British
- Chinese
- Japanese
What makes the Finnish so hard to conquer?
its a frozen wasteland shithole
Finland is a very wealthy country.
In a modern economy.
In a preindustrial wolrd what's there of interest? Wood?
Because snow, shitty coastlines and uneducated white plebeians arent exactly valuable natural resources anon
The swedes did it
all those peoples learned about pickled fish and immediately noped the frick out
I recall some major exibition about them in US that painted them in possitive light, improving commerce, bringing in new cultures, etc. When some Iraqi immigrants complaid, the museum told them only white people colonize and plunder, po enrich.
This empire was more of an achievement tbqh, and technically larger too.
british empire is always extremely overrated
>A bunch of african shit holes and lands with primitive indigenous populations
Yawn
>british empire is 90% uninhabited wastelands jungle and thundra
>most productive parts were rum then oil for like 4 years before they left the middle east
>muh ottoman ITT
you bastards in the west are lucky you don't live in that shithole or in a neighboring country to these absolute subhumans, most of the morons from the middle-east on this website especially have severe megalomania and napoleon complex bullshit, your empire collapsed because of women, literal thots destroyed it to hell and every single turkish kid is taught in school of the vast and great ottoman empire as if it wasn't anything but barbaric and subhuman, with dire consequences on commerce, science, civic rights and freedom, civilization properity etc. It was a garbage pyramid scheme that relied on tributes and it collapsed in on itself because of how much they overspent on prostitutes.
Isn't this Empire much stronger than the British or Mongol Empire?
Why are there no movies about it?
The Koreans send their regards.
>largest empire in the history of mankind
Did you learn history in a trailer park?
What is it then
Just google “the largest empire in history” you Black person
And it lasted about thirty years after Kublai died and they collectively shat the bed. What of it.
> meanwhile, Rome went on to last hundreds of years even after Caeser died.
i mean like why dont u just make a comment go viral wont they make a movie abt it
allahu akbar
I doubt it was really an empire and more just a huge fricking band of Mongolian buttholes on horseback absolutely crushing it on open ground.
How many first rate ships of the line did they have?
I read a book about Genghis Khan in high school and came away thinking he may have been the most based and seethe-generating man to have ever lived
this instance in history doesn’t suck israelite dick
Same with the Battle of Blair Mountain
But the British Empire was the largest in the history of mankind OP.
you forgot about mulan, dumbshit
>iron age story
Wasn't really mongol centered. It was a Chinese story with mongol villains.
>falls apart 2 generations later
what did it mean?
>empire
>rode around on horses collecting bribe money
>massacred anyone who didn't give them money
hardly an empire, i'd say they're on par with somali warlords
always wonder if i visited one of these stans if they would praise or complain about genghis khan
it would depend on how they perceived the context of the discussion.
curious what the opinions of the locals are in the places genghis khan invaded
like i learned about mongols and genghis khan from school but thats from thousands of miles away, the whole region was considered the mongol empire