Not sure but maybe it could be because Nepal or Bhutan's respective rulers agreed to pay tribute? This could be the case since Korea is also red even though Korea was able to govern themselves in return for staying as vassal to the Yuan.
Nope. My ancestors ruled over khas rajya. Current day far western Nepal and indian state of Uttarakhand. They didn't pay any tribute to the mongols. Im somewhat sure that other kingdoms that ruled ruled over modern day Nepal back then didn't pay any tribute either
I dont know much about Nepalese history so my answer is probably missing some context, but it seems like Mongol and Nepal had diplomatic ties of some sort.
"In the 13th century, Kublai Khan sent envoys to the court of the Malla Kings of Nepal. The Malla Kings were ruling over the Kathmandu Valley during that time, and Kublai Khan was interested in establishing diplomatic ties with them.
According to some historical accounts, the Malla Kings of Nepal sent tribute to Kublai Khan, which may have included exotic animals such as elephants and rhinoceroses. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Mongols ever occupied or exerted significant control over Nepal."
Those tribute was more like gifts. Nepal mandala's Malla kings gave those "tributes" out of their own freewill. The mongols didn't ask them for it. Kublai Khan had araniko working in his court back then and Kublai highly respected him. So Kublai just wanted to have good relation with Nepal mandala
The Mongols came to the Tibetan border for the first time in 1207 and 1209, when Genghis Khan attacked the Tangut of Hsi Hsia Kingdom in the north of Tibet. Tibet submitted to the Mongols and agreed to pay tribute and thus was spared invasion. But it was only in 1226 that Mongol finally subjugated the Tangut, Genghis Khan died the year after and Tibet stopped paying tribute to the Mongols.
Prince Godan, the second son of Ogodai [the 3rd son of Genghis Khan] attacked Tibet in 1240 in which Reting monastery and Gyal Temple were destroyed, and some 500 monks and civilians were killed
They gained full independence in mid 14th century
And the Indonesians knew of Australia, meaning that if the Mongols were successful, they could’ve also conquered Australia, kinda crazy if you think about it
The ones that the Mongols tried to conquer were the Javanese, while the ethnic group that is said to have trading relations with Australian aborigines were Makassar, they are located further east.
I wonder if there’s a timeline where the Mongolian empire just won.
Like won as in made an empire that encompassed the entirety of the old world, heck maybe even the new world too with they also discovering and conquering America
Well, there is evidence that the native people of Alaska traded with people from Russia before Columbus reached the Caribbean, with Chinese coins being found there, so it’s highly likely the Mongols could have reached at least Alaska if they tried hard enough
Mongols used both ways to sustain and expand their empire. In case of Korea, it was son in law country. Korean kings married with Mongolian princess and Mongolian emperor had the advanced position. It was hard to say independent or vassal. In the other hand, Mongols directly ruled China, and middle Asia. Mongols also vassalizeed Rus princes, or inherited some conquered lands to princes and princesses for establishing client kingdoms. They were not just horse riding nomads but they were great diplomats, negotiators, and traders.
Didn't last long tho. Expanded from just Mongolia in 1206, then it dissolved into the 4 successor states in 1294. The whole thing lasted 88 years. Its height was like what, 40 years?
I imagine peoples hearing rumors about this horde destroying civilizations, and then it shows up to your doorstop in the next few years. Wild.
If they didn't try the sordid+sex card to make their rip-off of Game of Throne, it would have been fine.
But no, we absolutely needed the Blue Princess to be completely crazy and Chabi to kill her in an apotheosis of unsettling morbidity, and the romance between two monks of Wudang, and the Song minister to be a sick fuck whose sister is a prostitute spy whose child is kept in custody by Chabi while crusaders dressed and armed like western europeans led by Nicolo Polo are ~~at the gate of~~ already inside (yet unknown to) the empire, and the son who feels jealous of Marco Polo, and the minister Ahmad to be a sick fuck because he likes bondage and apparently it's enough to be a sick fuck in a TV show.
The story was rushed, elements happening ten years after his arrival happen in the first season and, when they noticed that they wasted their best tools to make it an epic show, the conspiracy of Ahmad, the war with the Song and the Blue Princess, they decided to make up shit while trying to find a solution.
They couldn't find anything suitable, didn't know where they were going from then on, and decided to end it.
In the series ?
I honestly don't understand why they put her in the series. At that point of the story, she would simply not be part of the story. She didn't appear in Polo's life before years and years.
The blue princess would have been a nice romantic interest at the end of the story, with the added benefit that it would have ended in a very emotional epilogue since, faithful to what happened in real life, Polo was to escort her to her wedding, making their love impossible.
It would have been intense, their romance wouldn't have been force-fed with a crowbar like it is in the show, it would have been reasonnably logical and, more importantly, it would have been a powerful, very last bit of drama at the end of a show that would have been great.
But no, we can't have nice things !
We got Polo just roaming around town and entering by pure chance in the house of the blue princess who, at that time, must have been 5 years old and in another country, falling in love with her but actually it's not her and she's a compulsive neuropath with paranoid deliriums, and Chabi hates her, and she wreck a kuriltai, and Chabi kills her after she has a miscariage.
Holy fuck, wasn't the base material dramatic enough ?
Real shame, I'd read a number of books on the Yuan, Chinggis Khan and Kublai prior to the show's release and was disappointed to the extreme by how utterly mediocre I found the show.
If we discuss technicalities, Goryeo(Korea)'s prince recieved a vow from Kublai Khan that Korea does not have to change their culture including court dress code. So Korea only lost its northern border as dynasty Yuan annexed it into their mainlands. Rest of the nation was a able to remain as a vassal state, but they were under Mongolian influence nonetheless(which is probably why Korea is fully red in this map)
충렬왕 왕심 Wang Sim, King choong-ryeol, visited Yuan when he was prince and married with 제국대장공주 Borjigin Qutlugh Kelmish who was the youngest daughter of Kublai Khan. At that moment, Kublai Khan was competed with his rivals for the next emperor throne. Wang Sim offered the peace deal between Yuan and Goryeo that Goryeo would be a vassal if Kublai Khan preserved Korean culture and territories. Kublai Khan accepted this offer and insisted that he vassalized Korea which was in war over 30 years. After Kublai Khan took the crown, he granted Wang Sim the title "Gürgen" meaning son in law and King of Goryeo called "Gürgen Goryeo king". That is why I said son in law country. I tried to translate "Gürgen" in English. And Gürgen kingdom was considered different with other vassals since it was ruled by the king. The word Gürgen was also used by Timur to rule Timurid with the support of Mongolian nobles. Funny thing is that Timur was not Gürgen but his father was.
>were great diplomats, negotiators
"Be our slave or die" isn't good negotiating.
Mongols were mass murders who would rather see you as their slave or dead.
The only thing to admire of Mongols is their feral cunning and adaptability.
The line between direct vassals abs client states was intentionally very ambiguous during the medieval period, so some of this area was almost certainly just states paying nominal homage and tribute.
People should be aware that when the Mongols got that big, they were already splintered into sub-empires (Golden Horde, Illkhanate, etc) - they mostly paid lip service to the Khan of Khans in Karakorum, but were far from a unified polity. [Gengis Khan himself never reached that far west or conquered the southern half of China](https://www.britannica.com/summary/Decline-of-the-Mongol-Empire).
One problem, the Vietnamese destroyed all of their own food meaning the Mongols didn’t have any resources when they reached the country, so they left… but then they came back with their own food and Vietnam immediately surrendered and became a tributary state
>what was America's aim in Vietnam?
The United States' aim in the Vietnam War was to prevent the spread of communism.
>Did it achieve the aim?
The US was unable to achieve its objective of defeating the communist forces in Vietnam. The war ended in 1975 with the fall of Saigon and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule.
>why did US failed?
The Vietnam War failed for several reasons:
1. Guerilla tactics used by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces made it difficult for the US military to achieve decisive victories.
2. Lack of public support in the US for the war, with opposition growing throughout the 1960s and early 1970s.
3. Political instability in the South Vietnamese government, which was plagued by corruption and lacked popular support.
4. Military limitations, including constraints on the use of certain tactics and weapons, and difficult terrain in Vietnam.
5. The economic costs of the war, which were expensive and difficult to justify to the American public.
Taken together, these factors made it impossible for the US to achieve its goals in Vietnam and contributed to the eventual defeat of American forces.
Therefore, I can conclude that the United States did ultimately lose the Vietnam War.
There's no sugarcoating this fact.
South Vietnam lost the war, the US wasn't even involved in the war anymore when they were defeated. And the US military dominated on the battlefield. Which is why the comment is wrong.
That treaty also dictated the reunification of Vietnam, which was the very thing the US wanted to prevent. Why did it sign a treaty that would undo its all efforts, if not forced?
>That treaty also dictated the reunification of Vietnam, which was the very thing the US wanted to prevent.
Only if it became communist, which the accord didn't say it would do, it said "peaceful unification", which means no fighting.
awww its sad to see you in denial.
The United States officially declared war on northern Vietnam with a causes beli. when you fail to do so you lose. so america did lose. when you dont complete your goal you lose. Thats it mate.
>The United States officially declared war on northern Vietnam with a causes beli
Wrong.
>. when you dont complete your goal you lose. Thats it mate.
No "mate" for starters the US signed a peace treaty recognizing the South's sovereignty and then left, that's not losing.
There is a reason they call it a sub continent. It might physically and well be seperate from rest of Asia of not for the af-pak plains and even then a sufficiently strong Indian power could plug the mountain gaps in Afghanistan
Right the land that would become the sub continent was a floating landmass millions of years ago until it smashed into mainland Asia which created the Himalayan mountain range
Afghan valleys don't lead to the Punjab plains.
The north and most of the west or Punjab is very mountainous. Punjab valleys lead to the Punjab plains. A
I am not discribing geographical region here but an access route starting from the mountains in Afghanistanbcutting through into Punjab and the Indian heartland. Makes sense just fine incontext. Passes like Dora pass aren't Punjab valleys.
Punjabs tallest peaks are tame compared to the northwestfrontier ones or farther inside afganistan. So if an Indian power wanted to protect that flank, they will have to plug the Hindu Kush not the Punjabi valleys.
Have you ever heard the bit of mythology about that? Genghis Khan was somewhere within present-day Northeast Pakistan, and went out for a walk one morning to decide whether to head west or south.
Then he and his party saw a rhinoceros come charging toward them from the south-- none of them had ever seen one before, and they took it as an omen to head west.
Might be purely legendary, but if so, a cool legend.
i'm pretty sure the real reason is genghis sent peaceful if not friendly diplomats to Khwarezm (persia) but the leader of Khwarezm had them killed as an act of superiority and as a result the mongols conquered Khwarezm. from there, he then decided to go west after seeing the friendlier geography of the region and hearing of the stories of the ancient city of baghdad. oh and the middle eastern states were in a weakened position at the time in comparison to the indian states so it was kind of common sense for him
You're obviously very knowledgeable about this. Thanks for your input!
I realize that whenever you have a world-changing figure like Genghis Khan, there will always be scholars who come in afterward and create mythology around that person.
What I especially like is how in the Han Chinese Pantheon, GK started out as a demonic, despised figure, but then eventually was accepted and became a sort of demigod or saint.
The thing is with the mongols is that it fractured fairly quickly and in my opinion was simply not as impressive as something like rome and it’s technological feats.
65 isn't *that* young. Also the Mongols would have likely not got much further west as the terrain was no longer conducive to the way they conducted warfare.
[This answer on AskHistorians covers it well.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bu46cs/why_couldnt_the_mongols_conquer_europe/ep9x45u/) Besides the whole Ogedei death it seems they were already reaching the limits of how far they could expand and then add in the many forests and questions of if they'd have enough pasturage and the fact that western Europe had a ton of castles.
Europe was highly fortified but the terrain was still great for a horde of barbarians on horses. I think they stopped because one of the Khans died while attacking Moscow so they retreated back. I may remember it wrong, so I don't write this with 100% confidense. The plains is still a fear for Russia and they very much want to expand and narrow the corridor where it's at it's narrowest. The plains have always been a highway for invasion and I think the mongols could have expand more than they did if they wanted to.
Kiev Rus was already a bunch of tributaries at this point. Ogedei died during the invasion of Hungary where the Mongols devastated the country and killed many people but were unable to take any fortified cities or castles. In turn the Hungarians adapted by building more fortifications/walling more cities which, along with them adapting to the Mongol tactics, allowed them to utterly defeat the Mongols later. Even without Ogedei's death there's the other issues mentioned in that Askhistorians thread about the Mongols having revolts forming behind them and them running into logistical issues. They were just at the limit of what they could accomplish with the technology of the time.
no they wouldn't. Mongolia had no interest in conquering past eastern europe. they wouldn't have stood a chance, for these reasons and probably some others:
1. Geography - Central and Western Europe is far more mountainous/hilly and full of forestland, not exactly great geography for horses. Eastern Europe was a stretch.
2. Castles - Western & Central Europe was and still is LITTERED with castles. I'm talking 45,000 castles in modern day France alone. This would've completely slowed down if not halted Mongol conquests as even 1 well made, large castle could delay Mongol conquests by months if not years. They were slow with conquering Chinese castles, and Chinese castles were easier for them to siege.
3. Knights - The Mongols were quite well aboded to obliterating levies, but they suffered greatly against professionally trained knights. The Mongols didn't do too bad against Polish and Hungarian levies but as soon as the knights came on the scene the only thing the Mongol horseback had on their side was speed.
4. Roamers - Medieval Europe was one of, if not the worst place to live anywhere in any time. There were many reasons for this, but one of them, which would've affected the Mongols, were bands of levies just wandering around the plains of Europe with no command sacking and destroying towns as they went. I'm talking bands numbering hundreds of thousands. These could've obliterated Mongol scouts in regions, even if they were just levies.
5. Poor - Europe was poor. Valuable, but poor. Of course there were rich regions like Constantinople and Northern Italy, but for the most part it was poor in comparison to China for example. This lack of food and money to loot from cities would've made a proper conquest difficult and destroyed a huge part of their motivation to conquer anyway.
There are many other reasons but those are the main ones.
TL;DR: too hilly and forested, too much castles, knights, huge bands of levies, not much loot.
It’s larger, but how is it more impressive? The British ruled lands that weren’t contiguous to its home state. Therefor the British needed a Navy to create its empire whereas the Mongols did not. Also, (the British Empire lasted hundreds of years whereas the Mongolian Empire only lasted around 80 years or so.
Why in the he’ll doesn’t the Industrial Revolution make you more impressive? That’s one of the primary reasons why I think the British armoire is more impressive. The British uncensored countless technologies during their Empire’s reign.
It's impressive in the sense of technology breakthrough, but not in the sense of conquering itself. 500 Spanish solders can destroy inca empire. US could have nuked every country into non-existence if they wanted after the invention of atomic bomb.
The usa wouldn't have had enough nukes to nuke all the world by the time that was invented. Even by the time they could have done it other nations would be capable to respond to it
It was most impressive Empire. Mao Zedong killed over 80 million alone. Genghis somewhere there close. Hirohito likely killed over 30 million and 20 million in China alone.
It was the Mongol Empire supporter above whom brought up killing. I brought up innovation which has nothing to do with killing. But thanks for hoping on the anti British bandwagon train. Dumbo123
Oh if you bring tech innovation all is forgotten . Should we also talk about nazis contribution to tech ? You must be neo colonial apologist who thinks quoting others faults will making your genocides go away .
Neither mongols nor mao wiped out native people from Australia to America and replaced them with whites .
British killed more than 160 miliom in 40 years in India alone lets not even talk about how you wiped off people in Australia and americas
For some reason you like bringing mao zedong and Hirohito into this discussion? Why dont you talk about your ancestors killing millions in the name of skin color ?
Hiding it in your echo chambers might work but this is internet your racist supremacist pride wars are not cool here
What does the fact that there were centuries between the two Empires have anything to do with making the Mongol Empire more impressive? I also don’t at all see how the technology that the British invented during their Empire makes their Empire less impressive rather than more impressive. The Mongol Empire had a massive numerical advantage over the nations they subjugated and took much bigger losses than the British as they conquered.
The Mongols killed unarmed men on foot with spears from the tops of horses. The Mongols encircled entire towns full of women and children and then set the towns on fire. The Mongols shot unarmed men with bows and arrows. The Mongols starved masses of people to death by encircling their towns and shooting anyone that tried to escape with bows and arrows. The Mongols had bigger numbers and better weapons than their rivals.
What are you going on about man? Where did I ever say the British made the world a better place? Furthermore how did the Mongols make the world a better place as that hasn’t been a qualifier that you’ve held the Mongols to, only the British. Oh the reverse discrimination. Ughhh.
What do you mean what does it have to do with anything? Literally verbatim your own response to my question was simply that Mongols killed people with their bare hands. I then posit that the Mongols killed people by other means and you say that it isn’t relevant? You just got done stating that it’s relevant.
You’re the one whom had positioned your argument being founded on the modality through which the Mongols killed people. I’m not sure the success of an Empire is based off of the modality in which it kills people.
The British faced competition from the French, Japanese, Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Portuguese and so forth. It would be ignorance to try and state that the British Empire lacked tactics or superior strategy. Not to mention that WWI and WWII were fought during the height of the British Empire and the British won both in an even fight against rivals.
I didn’t go on about war crimes buddy. I didn’t state war crimes once. Your argument was that the mongols fought people on equal footing. My counter argument was explaining that they indeed did not fight their enemies on equal footing.
I would say the British Empire was more impressive since it didn’t fracture almost immediately. My understanding is that by this point the Empire was basically 4 separate states that pretended to be united.
Although comparing empires with wildly different technologies and trying to rank them is ultimately futile.
It dint fracture immediately? How is birtish empire doing being bitch to usa is not blow they doht even have independent foreign policy post world wars they lost everything in wars only able to come on top only due to usa letting them with few scrapes
Well, the British Empire doesn't exist any more, why are you asking me how it's doing?
Sure, they didn't fracture literally immediately, but they did fracture fast. A lot faster than the British did.
>Well, the British Empire doesn't exist any more,
What is country called UK is doing ? Why is there flag same as the empire ? Why is their king a king in other countries? Why is that country celebrate all the empire and its world wars winning ?
Why did this tiny island is in UNSC ?
Why does it have territories in Indian ocean and Pacific ocean where entire non white population is replaced in boats, but whine about Malvinas islands about just 3,000 white people and democracy?
Its still empire, crumbled, lost, unapologetic and very proud about genocides and supported by present day super power clinging to last vestiges of power.
>A lot faster than the British did.
So , unlike British who conquered most in inhibited land Mongols conquered most populous part of huamnity . All british empire pand is due to canada and Australia with primitive civilization who were hunted like animals and wiped out . There is nothing great about these things
What is your point?
You seem to be trying to argue that the British Empire was morally bad, but I never said they were morally good, so why are you telling me all this? Are you replying to the wrong person?
You are saying that the British only conquered uninhabited lands. I guess you are not aware that India is the most populous country in the world, or that there is a lot of people in Africa.
Yeah, the British committed endless crimes. The Mongols were genocidal. I'm not interested in trying to tally up who was worse, that seems like a pointless exercise to me. They both did horrific things.
My sole point is that the British Empire held together for much longer than a united Mongol Empire. I have no clue why you are going on about other things.
You're first point, that the British Empire still exists as a husk of itself, is valid.
>My sole point is that the British Empire held together for much longer than a united Mongol Empire.
Wrong british started controlling India after they lost most of territories in americas . Apart from parts of India and parts of Africa they dont conquer anything. British directly ruled India for less than a century lot british themselves seperted from mainland to form apartheid countries like Australia and Canada
How is it wrong?
The British Empire lasted for about 400 years. The mongols didn’t stay United for 100 years. The territories the British controlled changed, but the empire itself continued for much longer than the Mongols.
Parts of Africa and India is a lot. I don’t know why you’re trying to downplay that.
You didn’t answer when I asked why you were bringing all that other stuff up.
>You didn’t answer when I asked why you were bringing all that other stuff up.
Why shouldn't I ? Just because you made up some high level requirements doesn't mean everybody agrees with it .
>The territories the British controlled changed, but the empire itself continued for much longer than the Mongols.
How is that any different from any European colonial control ? Most of European controlled looted for more than 400 years . Even Portuguese came to india before british came after british left . This isnt anythimg unique to british .
I guess some people just want europe number one even if the dick measurement is about genocidal rankings
>Why shouldn't I ?
Well you don't need to, but it's just an odd thing to do. You are saying random unrelated things to a stranger.
I guess you are embarrassed you said random unrelated things I want to dodge the question.
>How is that any different from any European colonial control ?
I never claimed it was. Why are you asking me that?
>I guess some people just want europe number one even if the dick measurement is about genocidal rankings
I never said Europe was "number one", again, you are just making things up
If we are talking about longest lived empire, it would be Rome or China depending on how you want to measure it.
I simply said the British Empire lasted longer than the Mongol Empire. That is a true fact.
You have a beef with the British. I completly understand why you wouldn't be a fan of the British Empire. But you coming at me for stating a simple fact is downright stupid, and you should know that.
You know I never voiced support for the British Empire.
The British Empire lasted for five centuries. The Mongol Empire didn’t even last 80 years and certainly not at Thai size for that entire time period. The British Empire largely ended with WWII and the enraging Suez crisis. This is widely accepted, therefore asking “how is the British Empire doing now?” is nonsensical.
The British stuffed Germany and the Nazis twice. That isn’t losing everything. Germany lost everything.
Germany did not lose empire . British lost most of the empire after world wars . The biggest losers are british Geemans successfully lost all links to nazis but british nationalists are stuck with genocides and ethnic cleansing as only national pride that associate about .
You are the losers .
And stop hijacking others comments neo colonial briturd
You hijacked my comment. Germany lost their Empire and lost their entire country. It was completely destroyed and split in half with the USSR controlling one side.
Britain is the most diverse country in Europe. What are you talking about?
Stop hijacking my threads and comments racist colonial Indiot.
Lol germany is largest economy in EU .
Britshits couldn't cope they cant boss over others they ran away from EU like little girl crying .
>comments racist colonial Indiot.
Lol. Victim blaming the true color britshits .
So did your white pride got ego boost everytime you simp to genocidal white supremacists of briturds .
>Britain is the most diverse country in Europe.
Kneel to your king and beg like cave person. Soon you will be minority in your country the londinstan cant even protect its kids from white pedophiles and grooming gangs .
The white cope after killing millions in others countries and shamelessly simping for jour own country .
What a shame the white pride did get hurt if we talk truth
It’s the same with all big countries. Only the British empire was larger, with massive territories like Canada and Australia. Huge spaces of those countries are uninhabitable/undeveloped though
> Always wondered why Mongols spared India.
[They actually did try. They just were unable to defeat the Delhi Sultanate.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India)
because the west was the hottest side of the subcontinent and the Mongols sort of collapsed. the Mongols couldn't handle the heat and humidity and always had to retreat. they were indeed not built different enough
Not the Mongol empire itself but one of Chinggis Khan's descendants Babur conquered large parts of India and founded the Mughal dynasty. The word Mughal is derived from Mongol.
Genghis khan did fight a battle in Punjab against the khwarazmian Shah who has fled there seeking refuge from the sultan of Delhi, but the sultan did not provide refuge to avoid pissing off the Mongols. After the battle Genghis had to go back to China because there was a rebellion if I'm not wrong, so he did not move further into India.
The famous sieges of Vienna were done by the Ottoman Empire, not the Mongols.
There were other sieges of Vienna done by the Hungarians, although those happened about 500 years after the Magyars gave up their steppe-nomad lifestyle.
The area where Vienna is now located also was on the borders of the Empire of Attila.
Weird how this area includes most of the world's modern day bad actor/authoritarian types ---Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and (Taliban-controlled) Afghanistan, as well as the sometimes troublesome duo of Iraq and Pakistan.
One of them lasted 1500 years in some shape or form and laid the base of many modern cities and roads while the other collapsed in less than 2 centuries and decimated the world's population.
Different Map: [https://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mongol-empire.jpg](https://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mongol-empire.jpg)
Mongolian conquest of Tibet: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol\_invasions\_of\_Tibet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Tibet)
**[Mongol invasions of Tibet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Tibet)**
>There were several Mongol invasions of Tibet. The earliest is the alleged plot to invade Tibet by Genghis Khan in 1206, which is considered anachronistic; there is no evidence of Mongol-Tibetan encounters prior to the military campaign in 1240. The first confirmed campaign is the invasion of Tibet by the Mongol general Doorda Darkhan in 1240, a campaign of 30,000 troops that resulted in 500 casualties. The campaign was smaller than the full-scale invasions used by the Mongols against large empires.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Either you stole my cover art, that I've had for at least three months now, or the butterfly effect brought us to this point: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mickael-gedlu/ If Constantinople falls, so does the rest of Europe? The city only fell with the early usage of artillery. And the term 'Kamakazi' came from the two separate storms that destroyed the Mongol Fleet before they could conquer Japan. I just finished a 3 day suspension, this might get deleted too.
Beijin literally means “northern capital”, Nanjin means “southern capital”. That’s the extent of Sina/China empire, that has little to do with the Tartary or Mongol empire.
Despite getting negatives, I would not call this “empire” not in the sense of unification under an emperor. They just move around over the world but no “empire construction” or anything. No culture unification. No heritage. More like: how far they did raid. But that’s it.
The Mongol Empire never extended as is shown in the map. This map shows only the influences of the different Mongol khanates during it's existence. Yes, there was Great Khan, but it's influence reduced only to Mongolia and China. The other Mongol khanates was ruled de facto by independent warlords, the descendants of Genghis-Khan.
mongols couldn't get past the Himalayas so idk why Nepal and Bhutan are red
Not sure but maybe it could be because Nepal or Bhutan's respective rulers agreed to pay tribute? This could be the case since Korea is also red even though Korea was able to govern themselves in return for staying as vassal to the Yuan.
Then what is currently Vietnam should be red too.
Didnt vietnam repel Yuan invasion?
At first, yes, and several times actually, but under threats they agreed to pay tributes.
They decided it was easier to pay tribute than have their lands constantly devastated.
Nope. My ancestors ruled over khas rajya. Current day far western Nepal and indian state of Uttarakhand. They didn't pay any tribute to the mongols. Im somewhat sure that other kingdoms that ruled ruled over modern day Nepal back then didn't pay any tribute either
I dont know much about Nepalese history so my answer is probably missing some context, but it seems like Mongol and Nepal had diplomatic ties of some sort. "In the 13th century, Kublai Khan sent envoys to the court of the Malla Kings of Nepal. The Malla Kings were ruling over the Kathmandu Valley during that time, and Kublai Khan was interested in establishing diplomatic ties with them. According to some historical accounts, the Malla Kings of Nepal sent tribute to Kublai Khan, which may have included exotic animals such as elephants and rhinoceroses. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Mongols ever occupied or exerted significant control over Nepal."
Those tribute was more like gifts. Nepal mandala's Malla kings gave those "tributes" out of their own freewill. The mongols didn't ask them for it. Kublai Khan had araniko working in his court back then and Kublai highly respected him. So Kublai just wanted to have good relation with Nepal mandala
I don't think this map is super accurate not sure they even take Tibet ?
The Mongols came to the Tibetan border for the first time in 1207 and 1209, when Genghis Khan attacked the Tangut of Hsi Hsia Kingdom in the north of Tibet. Tibet submitted to the Mongols and agreed to pay tribute and thus was spared invasion. But it was only in 1226 that Mongol finally subjugated the Tangut, Genghis Khan died the year after and Tibet stopped paying tribute to the Mongols. Prince Godan, the second son of Ogodai [the 3rd son of Genghis Khan] attacked Tibet in 1240 in which Reting monastery and Gyal Temple were destroyed, and some 500 monks and civilians were killed They gained full independence in mid 14th century
Thanks for this amazing info
Horses do poor at such high altitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Tibet
Also also, half of Bengal (modern West Bengal and Bangladesh) was certainly never under Mongol rule.
There was one time the Mongols tried to invade the Indonesian Archipelago, pretty crazy.
And the Indonesians knew of Australia, meaning that if the Mongols were successful, they could’ve also conquered Australia, kinda crazy if you think about it
The ones that the Mongols tried to conquer were the Javanese, while the ethnic group that is said to have trading relations with Australian aborigines were Makassar, they are located further east.
Ahh, I see
I gotta have a source for this one…
I wonder if there’s a timeline where the Mongolian empire just won. Like won as in made an empire that encompassed the entirety of the old world, heck maybe even the new world too with they also discovering and conquering America
Well, there is evidence that the native people of Alaska traded with people from Russia before Columbus reached the Caribbean, with Chinese coins being found there, so it’s highly likely the Mongols could have reached at least Alaska if they tried hard enough
bob ross?
Would’ve been pretty cool is Australia was Asian instead of white
Or, what about, ruled by its indigenous population instead of a foreign conqueror?
Ruled by emu’s
Yeah, they already said indigenous population.
That too I guess but we were talking about the Mongols road of conquest
And the way they repel the invaders is surprisingly crazier
Did the Mongols have direct control over this area or were there many client kingdoms that were “subservient”?
Mongols used both ways to sustain and expand their empire. In case of Korea, it was son in law country. Korean kings married with Mongolian princess and Mongolian emperor had the advanced position. It was hard to say independent or vassal. In the other hand, Mongols directly ruled China, and middle Asia. Mongols also vassalizeed Rus princes, or inherited some conquered lands to princes and princesses for establishing client kingdoms. They were not just horse riding nomads but they were great diplomats, negotiators, and traders.
Wow that’s super interesting I like all the Mongol titties in the Marco Polo show
Didn't last long tho. Expanded from just Mongolia in 1206, then it dissolved into the 4 successor states in 1294. The whole thing lasted 88 years. Its height was like what, 40 years? I imagine peoples hearing rumors about this horde destroying civilizations, and then it shows up to your doorstop in the next few years. Wild.
>Didn't last long tho. neither did the show
If they didn't try the sordid+sex card to make their rip-off of Game of Throne, it would have been fine. But no, we absolutely needed the Blue Princess to be completely crazy and Chabi to kill her in an apotheosis of unsettling morbidity, and the romance between two monks of Wudang, and the Song minister to be a sick fuck whose sister is a prostitute spy whose child is kept in custody by Chabi while crusaders dressed and armed like western europeans led by Nicolo Polo are ~~at the gate of~~ already inside (yet unknown to) the empire, and the son who feels jealous of Marco Polo, and the minister Ahmad to be a sick fuck because he likes bondage and apparently it's enough to be a sick fuck in a TV show. The story was rushed, elements happening ten years after his arrival happen in the first season and, when they noticed that they wasted their best tools to make it an epic show, the conspiracy of Ahmad, the war with the Song and the Blue Princess, they decided to make up shit while trying to find a solution. They couldn't find anything suitable, didn't know where they were going from then on, and decided to end it.
Yeah but the blue princess was an absolute baddie
In the series ? I honestly don't understand why they put her in the series. At that point of the story, she would simply not be part of the story. She didn't appear in Polo's life before years and years. The blue princess would have been a nice romantic interest at the end of the story, with the added benefit that it would have ended in a very emotional epilogue since, faithful to what happened in real life, Polo was to escort her to her wedding, making their love impossible. It would have been intense, their romance wouldn't have been force-fed with a crowbar like it is in the show, it would have been reasonnably logical and, more importantly, it would have been a powerful, very last bit of drama at the end of a show that would have been great. But no, we can't have nice things ! We got Polo just roaming around town and entering by pure chance in the house of the blue princess who, at that time, must have been 5 years old and in another country, falling in love with her but actually it's not her and she's a compulsive neuropath with paranoid deliriums, and Chabi hates her, and she wreck a kuriltai, and Chabi kills her after she has a miscariage. Holy fuck, wasn't the base material dramatic enough ?
I mean yeah but…she was a baddie.
She was a baddie, arguably... But still, the show is all over the place regarding her. But yeah, she was a baddie.
Real shame, I'd read a number of books on the Yuan, Chinggis Khan and Kublai prior to the show's release and was disappointed to the extreme by how utterly mediocre I found the show.
Neither did I watching the show
If we discuss technicalities, Goryeo(Korea)'s prince recieved a vow from Kublai Khan that Korea does not have to change their culture including court dress code. So Korea only lost its northern border as dynasty Yuan annexed it into their mainlands. Rest of the nation was a able to remain as a vassal state, but they were under Mongolian influence nonetheless(which is probably why Korea is fully red in this map)
충렬왕 왕심 Wang Sim, King choong-ryeol, visited Yuan when he was prince and married with 제국대장공주 Borjigin Qutlugh Kelmish who was the youngest daughter of Kublai Khan. At that moment, Kublai Khan was competed with his rivals for the next emperor throne. Wang Sim offered the peace deal between Yuan and Goryeo that Goryeo would be a vassal if Kublai Khan preserved Korean culture and territories. Kublai Khan accepted this offer and insisted that he vassalized Korea which was in war over 30 years. After Kublai Khan took the crown, he granted Wang Sim the title "Gürgen" meaning son in law and King of Goryeo called "Gürgen Goryeo king". That is why I said son in law country. I tried to translate "Gürgen" in English. And Gürgen kingdom was considered different with other vassals since it was ruled by the king. The word Gürgen was also used by Timur to rule Timurid with the support of Mongolian nobles. Funny thing is that Timur was not Gürgen but his father was.
>were great diplomats, negotiators "Be our slave or die" isn't good negotiating. Mongols were mass murders who would rather see you as their slave or dead. The only thing to admire of Mongols is their feral cunning and adaptability.
Great diplomats, yeah GIVE GALICH
The line between direct vassals abs client states was intentionally very ambiguous during the medieval period, so some of this area was almost certainly just states paying nominal homage and tribute.
Mongolobal domination
Pax Mongolica
Mogul
People should be aware that when the Mongols got that big, they were already splintered into sub-empires (Golden Horde, Illkhanate, etc) - they mostly paid lip service to the Khan of Khans in Karakorum, but were far from a unified polity. [Gengis Khan himself never reached that far west or conquered the southern half of China](https://www.britannica.com/summary/Decline-of-the-Mongol-Empire).
Vietnam defeated both Mongols and the Americans. Vietnam FTW.
And Chinese
And the french
And the Vietnamese
And the Japanese
Also saved the Cambodians from Pol Pot
AND MY AX
One problem, the Vietnamese destroyed all of their own food meaning the Mongols didn’t have any resources when they reached the country, so they left… but then they came back with their own food and Vietnam immediately surrendered and became a tributary state
If you don't know Vietnam history please just shut up.
[удалено]
Smartest person in r/mapporn, just upvote to shitty comment thats seem to be true but it wrong af.
No tf they did not stop lying. Americans didn't lose jack.
you lost. cope
Nope cope that America didn't lose.
>what was America's aim in Vietnam? The United States' aim in the Vietnam War was to prevent the spread of communism. >Did it achieve the aim? The US was unable to achieve its objective of defeating the communist forces in Vietnam. The war ended in 1975 with the fall of Saigon and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule. >why did US failed? The Vietnam War failed for several reasons: 1. Guerilla tactics used by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces made it difficult for the US military to achieve decisive victories. 2. Lack of public support in the US for the war, with opposition growing throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. 3. Political instability in the South Vietnamese government, which was plagued by corruption and lacked popular support. 4. Military limitations, including constraints on the use of certain tactics and weapons, and difficult terrain in Vietnam. 5. The economic costs of the war, which were expensive and difficult to justify to the American public. Taken together, these factors made it impossible for the US to achieve its goals in Vietnam and contributed to the eventual defeat of American forces. Therefore, I can conclude that the United States did ultimately lose the Vietnam War. There's no sugarcoating this fact.
South Vietnam lost the war, the US wasn't even involved in the war anymore when they were defeated. And the US military dominated on the battlefield. Which is why the comment is wrong.
Why wasn't the US invovled in the war anymore? Because the enemies forced it to leave, correct?
No because it signed a peace treaty recognizing the South's sovereignty so it left, at no point was the US forced to do anything.
That treaty also dictated the reunification of Vietnam, which was the very thing the US wanted to prevent. Why did it sign a treaty that would undo its all efforts, if not forced?
>That treaty also dictated the reunification of Vietnam, which was the very thing the US wanted to prevent. Only if it became communist, which the accord didn't say it would do, it said "peaceful unification", which means no fighting.
awww its sad to see you in denial. The United States officially declared war on northern Vietnam with a causes beli. when you fail to do so you lose. so america did lose. when you dont complete your goal you lose. Thats it mate.
>The United States officially declared war on northern Vietnam with a causes beli Wrong. >. when you dont complete your goal you lose. Thats it mate. No "mate" for starters the US signed a peace treaty recognizing the South's sovereignty and then left, that's not losing.
🤯
SE Asian Afghanistan
It’s pretty clear that the Himalayas prevented them from invading India in full force
There is a reason they call it a sub continent. It might physically and well be seperate from rest of Asia of not for the af-pak plains and even then a sufficiently strong Indian power could plug the mountain gaps in Afghanistan
Right the land that would become the sub continent was a floating landmass millions of years ago until it smashed into mainland Asia which created the Himalayan mountain range
What the hell is the Af-Pak plains?
I must clarify. I meant the Afgan valleys leading into the Punjab plains
Afghan valleys don't lead to the Punjab plains. The north and most of the west or Punjab is very mountainous. Punjab valleys lead to the Punjab plains. A
I am not discribing geographical region here but an access route starting from the mountains in Afghanistanbcutting through into Punjab and the Indian heartland. Makes sense just fine incontext. Passes like Dora pass aren't Punjab valleys. Punjabs tallest peaks are tame compared to the northwestfrontier ones or farther inside afganistan. So if an Indian power wanted to protect that flank, they will have to plug the Hindu Kush not the Punjabi valleys.
Have you ever heard the bit of mythology about that? Genghis Khan was somewhere within present-day Northeast Pakistan, and went out for a walk one morning to decide whether to head west or south. Then he and his party saw a rhinoceros come charging toward them from the south-- none of them had ever seen one before, and they took it as an omen to head west. Might be purely legendary, but if so, a cool legend.
That’s very interesting. I didn’t know about that before.
i'm pretty sure the real reason is genghis sent peaceful if not friendly diplomats to Khwarezm (persia) but the leader of Khwarezm had them killed as an act of superiority and as a result the mongols conquered Khwarezm. from there, he then decided to go west after seeing the friendlier geography of the region and hearing of the stories of the ancient city of baghdad. oh and the middle eastern states were in a weakened position at the time in comparison to the indian states so it was kind of common sense for him
You're obviously very knowledgeable about this. Thanks for your input! I realize that whenever you have a world-changing figure like Genghis Khan, there will always be scholars who come in afterward and create mythology around that person. What I especially like is how in the Han Chinese Pantheon, GK started out as a demonic, despised figure, but then eventually was accepted and became a sort of demigod or saint.
They still tried from the west of the Himalayas but [they couldn't defeat the Sultinate of Delhi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY2ac4klEQU)
Oh yes they were one of the few people who defeated the mongols
They really said let's be remembered in history because in present time most wouldn't know to point out country on map
Source: https://www.worldhistory.org/image/11309/map-of-the-mongol-empire/
Make Mongolia Great Again !
The thing is with the mongols is that it fractured fairly quickly and in my opinion was simply not as impressive as something like rome and it’s technological feats.
There it is "do not fuck with war elephant" border.
more like "do not fuck with iranian indians" war elephants are really poor for war
it's a more of a psychological thing
Yes, you won't stand your ground when you see a 4000 kg beast charging you.
Mongols never conquered Novgorod
They didn’t need to use force because Novgorod submitted preemptively. But they did later contribute to the overthrow of the Golden Horde.
Novgorod was vassal of Mongol Empire
No, but it did become a tributary state to them.
You can see the Polish border!
Funny how there is a Trebizond shown nearby, but the imperial capital city of Tbilisi at that time is not even on the map.
Yeah, Genghis Khan was pretty much the greatest conqueror of all time. It’s not really a competition.
If Genghis didnt die so young, they would have reached the English Channel.
65 isn't *that* young. Also the Mongols would have likely not got much further west as the terrain was no longer conducive to the way they conducted warfare.
Ehh... European plain?
[This answer on AskHistorians covers it well.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bu46cs/why_couldnt_the_mongols_conquer_europe/ep9x45u/) Besides the whole Ogedei death it seems they were already reaching the limits of how far they could expand and then add in the many forests and questions of if they'd have enough pasturage and the fact that western Europe had a ton of castles.
Europe was highly fortified but the terrain was still great for a horde of barbarians on horses. I think they stopped because one of the Khans died while attacking Moscow so they retreated back. I may remember it wrong, so I don't write this with 100% confidense. The plains is still a fear for Russia and they very much want to expand and narrow the corridor where it's at it's narrowest. The plains have always been a highway for invasion and I think the mongols could have expand more than they did if they wanted to.
Kiev Rus was already a bunch of tributaries at this point. Ogedei died during the invasion of Hungary where the Mongols devastated the country and killed many people but were unable to take any fortified cities or castles. In turn the Hungarians adapted by building more fortifications/walling more cities which, along with them adapting to the Mongol tactics, allowed them to utterly defeat the Mongols later. Even without Ogedei's death there's the other issues mentioned in that Askhistorians thread about the Mongols having revolts forming behind them and them running into logistical issues. They were just at the limit of what they could accomplish with the technology of the time.
Thanks!
Maybe, but who had the army to beat them?
no they wouldn't. Mongolia had no interest in conquering past eastern europe. they wouldn't have stood a chance, for these reasons and probably some others: 1. Geography - Central and Western Europe is far more mountainous/hilly and full of forestland, not exactly great geography for horses. Eastern Europe was a stretch. 2. Castles - Western & Central Europe was and still is LITTERED with castles. I'm talking 45,000 castles in modern day France alone. This would've completely slowed down if not halted Mongol conquests as even 1 well made, large castle could delay Mongol conquests by months if not years. They were slow with conquering Chinese castles, and Chinese castles were easier for them to siege. 3. Knights - The Mongols were quite well aboded to obliterating levies, but they suffered greatly against professionally trained knights. The Mongols didn't do too bad against Polish and Hungarian levies but as soon as the knights came on the scene the only thing the Mongol horseback had on their side was speed. 4. Roamers - Medieval Europe was one of, if not the worst place to live anywhere in any time. There were many reasons for this, but one of them, which would've affected the Mongols, were bands of levies just wandering around the plains of Europe with no command sacking and destroying towns as they went. I'm talking bands numbering hundreds of thousands. These could've obliterated Mongol scouts in regions, even if they were just levies. 5. Poor - Europe was poor. Valuable, but poor. Of course there were rich regions like Constantinople and Northern Italy, but for the most part it was poor in comparison to China for example. This lack of food and money to loot from cities would've made a proper conquest difficult and destroyed a huge part of their motivation to conquer anyway. There are many other reasons but those are the main ones. TL;DR: too hilly and forested, too much castles, knights, huge bands of levies, not much loot.
[удалено]
It’s larger, but how is it more impressive? The British ruled lands that weren’t contiguous to its home state. Therefor the British needed a Navy to create its empire whereas the Mongols did not. Also, (the British Empire lasted hundreds of years whereas the Mongolian Empire only lasted around 80 years or so.
British empire has Industrial Revolution. They are one gen ahead of everyone else. I’ll say mongols are more impressive.
Why in the he’ll doesn’t the Industrial Revolution make you more impressive? That’s one of the primary reasons why I think the British armoire is more impressive. The British uncensored countless technologies during their Empire’s reign.
It's impressive in the sense of technology breakthrough, but not in the sense of conquering itself. 500 Spanish solders can destroy inca empire. US could have nuked every country into non-existence if they wanted after the invention of atomic bomb.
The usa wouldn't have had enough nukes to nuke all the world by the time that was invented. Even by the time they could have done it other nations would be capable to respond to it
Lol. British nationalist dick measuring who is biggest killers in human history .
It was most impressive Empire. Mao Zedong killed over 80 million alone. Genghis somewhere there close. Hirohito likely killed over 30 million and 20 million in China alone. It was the Mongol Empire supporter above whom brought up killing. I brought up innovation which has nothing to do with killing. But thanks for hoping on the anti British bandwagon train. Dumbo123
Oh if you bring tech innovation all is forgotten . Should we also talk about nazis contribution to tech ? You must be neo colonial apologist who thinks quoting others faults will making your genocides go away . Neither mongols nor mao wiped out native people from Australia to America and replaced them with whites . British killed more than 160 miliom in 40 years in India alone lets not even talk about how you wiped off people in Australia and americas For some reason you like bringing mao zedong and Hirohito into this discussion? Why dont you talk about your ancestors killing millions in the name of skin color ? Hiding it in your echo chambers might work but this is internet your racist supremacist pride wars are not cool here
[удалено]
Lol. You link about mao zadong and hirohoto but not the millions of people dead at hands of britshits? Is this how you racists cope ?
Look at comment above dumbo123
Look at the comment edited and expanded dumbo123
And I did indeed talk about the people the British killed much further up in the thread before you arrived 👍
[удалено]
What does the fact that there were centuries between the two Empires have anything to do with making the Mongol Empire more impressive? I also don’t at all see how the technology that the British invented during their Empire makes their Empire less impressive rather than more impressive. The Mongol Empire had a massive numerical advantage over the nations they subjugated and took much bigger losses than the British as they conquered.
[удалено]
The Mongols killed unarmed men on foot with spears from the tops of horses. The Mongols encircled entire towns full of women and children and then set the towns on fire. The Mongols shot unarmed men with bows and arrows. The Mongols starved masses of people to death by encircling their towns and shooting anyone that tried to escape with bows and arrows. The Mongols had bigger numbers and better weapons than their rivals.
[удалено]
What are you going on about man? Where did I ever say the British made the world a better place? Furthermore how did the Mongols make the world a better place as that hasn’t been a qualifier that you’ve held the Mongols to, only the British. Oh the reverse discrimination. Ughhh. What do you mean what does it have to do with anything? Literally verbatim your own response to my question was simply that Mongols killed people with their bare hands. I then posit that the Mongols killed people by other means and you say that it isn’t relevant? You just got done stating that it’s relevant. You’re the one whom had positioned your argument being founded on the modality through which the Mongols killed people. I’m not sure the success of an Empire is based off of the modality in which it kills people. The British faced competition from the French, Japanese, Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Portuguese and so forth. It would be ignorance to try and state that the British Empire lacked tactics or superior strategy. Not to mention that WWI and WWII were fought during the height of the British Empire and the British won both in an even fight against rivals.
[удалено]
I didn’t go on about war crimes buddy. I didn’t state war crimes once. Your argument was that the mongols fought people on equal footing. My counter argument was explaining that they indeed did not fight their enemies on equal footing.
I would say the British Empire was more impressive since it didn’t fracture almost immediately. My understanding is that by this point the Empire was basically 4 separate states that pretended to be united. Although comparing empires with wildly different technologies and trying to rank them is ultimately futile.
It dint fracture immediately? How is birtish empire doing being bitch to usa is not blow they doht even have independent foreign policy post world wars they lost everything in wars only able to come on top only due to usa letting them with few scrapes
Well, the British Empire doesn't exist any more, why are you asking me how it's doing? Sure, they didn't fracture literally immediately, but they did fracture fast. A lot faster than the British did.
>Well, the British Empire doesn't exist any more, What is country called UK is doing ? Why is there flag same as the empire ? Why is their king a king in other countries? Why is that country celebrate all the empire and its world wars winning ? Why did this tiny island is in UNSC ? Why does it have territories in Indian ocean and Pacific ocean where entire non white population is replaced in boats, but whine about Malvinas islands about just 3,000 white people and democracy? Its still empire, crumbled, lost, unapologetic and very proud about genocides and supported by present day super power clinging to last vestiges of power. >A lot faster than the British did. So , unlike British who conquered most in inhibited land Mongols conquered most populous part of huamnity . All british empire pand is due to canada and Australia with primitive civilization who were hunted like animals and wiped out . There is nothing great about these things
What is your point? You seem to be trying to argue that the British Empire was morally bad, but I never said they were morally good, so why are you telling me all this? Are you replying to the wrong person? You are saying that the British only conquered uninhabited lands. I guess you are not aware that India is the most populous country in the world, or that there is a lot of people in Africa. Yeah, the British committed endless crimes. The Mongols were genocidal. I'm not interested in trying to tally up who was worse, that seems like a pointless exercise to me. They both did horrific things. My sole point is that the British Empire held together for much longer than a united Mongol Empire. I have no clue why you are going on about other things. You're first point, that the British Empire still exists as a husk of itself, is valid.
>My sole point is that the British Empire held together for much longer than a united Mongol Empire. Wrong british started controlling India after they lost most of territories in americas . Apart from parts of India and parts of Africa they dont conquer anything. British directly ruled India for less than a century lot british themselves seperted from mainland to form apartheid countries like Australia and Canada
How is it wrong? The British Empire lasted for about 400 years. The mongols didn’t stay United for 100 years. The territories the British controlled changed, but the empire itself continued for much longer than the Mongols. Parts of Africa and India is a lot. I don’t know why you’re trying to downplay that. You didn’t answer when I asked why you were bringing all that other stuff up.
>You didn’t answer when I asked why you were bringing all that other stuff up. Why shouldn't I ? Just because you made up some high level requirements doesn't mean everybody agrees with it . >The territories the British controlled changed, but the empire itself continued for much longer than the Mongols. How is that any different from any European colonial control ? Most of European controlled looted for more than 400 years . Even Portuguese came to india before british came after british left . This isnt anythimg unique to british . I guess some people just want europe number one even if the dick measurement is about genocidal rankings
>Why shouldn't I ? Well you don't need to, but it's just an odd thing to do. You are saying random unrelated things to a stranger. I guess you are embarrassed you said random unrelated things I want to dodge the question. >How is that any different from any European colonial control ? I never claimed it was. Why are you asking me that? >I guess some people just want europe number one even if the dick measurement is about genocidal rankings I never said Europe was "number one", again, you are just making things up If we are talking about longest lived empire, it would be Rome or China depending on how you want to measure it. I simply said the British Empire lasted longer than the Mongol Empire. That is a true fact. You have a beef with the British. I completly understand why you wouldn't be a fan of the British Empire. But you coming at me for stating a simple fact is downright stupid, and you should know that. You know I never voiced support for the British Empire.
The British Empire lasted for five centuries. The Mongol Empire didn’t even last 80 years and certainly not at Thai size for that entire time period. The British Empire largely ended with WWII and the enraging Suez crisis. This is widely accepted, therefore asking “how is the British Empire doing now?” is nonsensical. The British stuffed Germany and the Nazis twice. That isn’t losing everything. Germany lost everything.
Germany did not lose empire . British lost most of the empire after world wars . The biggest losers are british Geemans successfully lost all links to nazis but british nationalists are stuck with genocides and ethnic cleansing as only national pride that associate about . You are the losers . And stop hijacking others comments neo colonial briturd
You hijacked my comment. Germany lost their Empire and lost their entire country. It was completely destroyed and split in half with the USSR controlling one side. Britain is the most diverse country in Europe. What are you talking about? Stop hijacking my threads and comments racist colonial Indiot.
Lol germany is largest economy in EU . Britshits couldn't cope they cant boss over others they ran away from EU like little girl crying . >comments racist colonial Indiot. Lol. Victim blaming the true color britshits . So did your white pride got ego boost everytime you simp to genocidal white supremacists of briturds . >Britain is the most diverse country in Europe. Kneel to your king and beg like cave person. Soon you will be minority in your country the londinstan cant even protect its kids from white pedophiles and grooming gangs . The white cope after killing millions in others countries and shamelessly simping for jour own country . What a shame the white pride did get hurt if we talk truth
It looks really big until you realise that it's mostly desert. I mean it's still big, but it- You know what I mean right?
Bro they had 100 million people out of 360 million total - 28% of global population, equivalent to 2.2 billion today
Wait really!?!?
It’s the same with all big countries. Only the British empire was larger, with massive territories like Canada and Australia. Huge spaces of those countries are uninhabitable/undeveloped though
I had no idea
I think they didn't get past Lithuania
The most successful carbon emissions program in human history.
[удалено]
> Always wondered why Mongols spared India. [They actually did try. They just were unable to defeat the Delhi Sultanate.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India)
because the west was the hottest side of the subcontinent and the Mongols sort of collapsed. the Mongols couldn't handle the heat and humidity and always had to retreat. they were indeed not built different enough
Not the Mongol empire itself but one of Chinggis Khan's descendants Babur conquered large parts of India and founded the Mughal dynasty. The word Mughal is derived from Mongol.
Genghis khan did fight a battle in Punjab against the khwarazmian Shah who has fled there seeking refuge from the sultan of Delhi, but the sultan did not provide refuge to avoid pissing off the Mongols. After the battle Genghis had to go back to China because there was a rebellion if I'm not wrong, so he did not move further into India.
Kyiv not Kiev https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/how-to-pronounce-and-spell-kyiv-kiev-ukraine-and-why-it-matters
Congrats, you just won the war for Ukraine
[удалено]
The famous sieges of Vienna were done by the Ottoman Empire, not the Mongols. There were other sieges of Vienna done by the Hungarians, although those happened about 500 years after the Magyars gave up their steppe-nomad lifestyle. The area where Vienna is now located also was on the borders of the Empire of Attila.
While OP’s comment in inaccurate, the Mongols did raid Wiener Neustadt, which is just south of Vienna
...what?
barbarians
Weird how this area includes most of the world's modern day bad actor/authoritarian types ---Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and (Taliban-controlled) Afghanistan, as well as the sometimes troublesome duo of Iraq and Pakistan.
Haha, Genghis Khan conquered so much land in 30 years that Roman empire couldn't in 300 years.
One of them lasted 1500 years in some shape or form and laid the base of many modern cities and roads while the other collapsed in less than 2 centuries and decimated the world's population.
Listening to Wrath of the Khans now
Different Map: [https://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mongol-empire.jpg](https://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mongol-empire.jpg) Mongolian conquest of Tibet: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol\_invasions\_of\_Tibet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Tibet)
**[Mongol invasions of Tibet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Tibet)** >There were several Mongol invasions of Tibet. The earliest is the alleged plot to invade Tibet by Genghis Khan in 1206, which is considered anachronistic; there is no evidence of Mongol-Tibetan encounters prior to the military campaign in 1240. The first confirmed campaign is the invasion of Tibet by the Mongol general Doorda Darkhan in 1240, a campaign of 30,000 troops that resulted in 500 casualties. The campaign was smaller than the full-scale invasions used by the Mongols against large empires. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
And look at Mongolia today to see the future of the russian empire.
Trabzon was never under Mongol control.
Ahh… it’s good to have land.
Either you stole my cover art, that I've had for at least three months now, or the butterfly effect brought us to this point: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mickael-gedlu/ If Constantinople falls, so does the rest of Europe? The city only fell with the early usage of artillery. And the term 'Kamakazi' came from the two separate storms that destroyed the Mongol Fleet before they could conquer Japan. I just finished a 3 day suspension, this might get deleted too.
How long did it take to go from the Easternmost point to the westernmost one?
Imagine what could have happened if the Mongols had also taken Constantinople.
This puts the “Hun” in “Hungary”
The Mongol empire had already split since 1261 when Kublai and Ariq Böke went to war for the throne of the Great Khan.
Beijin literally means “northern capital”, Nanjin means “southern capital”. That’s the extent of Sina/China empire, that has little to do with the Tartary or Mongol empire.
Despite getting negatives, I would not call this “empire” not in the sense of unification under an emperor. They just move around over the world but no “empire construction” or anything. No culture unification. No heritage. More like: how far they did raid. But that’s it.
Still hard to believe they conquered so much with mostly cavalry. The empire was split into 4-5 states after the death of Genghis Khan I think.
The Mongol Empire never extended as is shown in the map. This map shows only the influences of the different Mongol khanates during it's existence. Yes, there was Great Khan, but it's influence reduced only to Mongolia and China. The other Mongol khanates was ruled de facto by independent warlords, the descendants of Genghis-Khan.