@Accisma Sorry, the character limit made it a little difficult to make clear what I meant by “your theory is like swiss cheese and factless bullshit”.
Every single Empire in history had DIFFERENT socio-economic backgrounds yet still expanded WHEN they had the power to do so, Mongolia is not some special place in an alternate dimension that exists only in your mind. You can make all the claims you like, they are factless. The Mongols only expanded when unified, when they COULD.
@rdrakken Sorry, the character limit made it a little difficult to make clear what I meant by “perfect storm”: Unification under one leader provided the initial impetus, but without the underlying socio-economic facts of nomadic living the Mongolian Empire would never have came about.
So yes, it just so happened that what set off expansion was the rise of a single leader, but as the example of China and it’s 3500 years of Emperors shows, that’s not all that matters! Hope that clears it up!
@Accisma You are completely irrelevant. Your idea that historical facts are meaningless is irrelevant. The comparisons you are making are irrelevant. In fact, the only thing relevant in your posts is how they end, with a period.
Over 200 years of Mongolian history of their being nomads and the only time they expanded was when unified under one leader. Period, end of story, your theory has more holes than swiss cheese like all theories with no historical FACTS in them.
@rdrakken To go back to the very beginning of this discussion, I think the ultimate point here is that while you are correct in pointing to events such as the Mongolian expansions as evidence of underlying human traits that could be seen as negative, it would be remiss of you not to also see the very many examples of other historical events based on other, more positive, human traits – such as altruism, one of the founding principles of most societies. Not everything is as bad as it seems!
@rdrakken So what we are left with is a view of history that, yes, does agree with your assessment that peoples expand because they can – but more accurately, it is that peoples expand because they can *and* when an expansionist drive is supported by underlying economic and cultural traits. Events such as the Mongolian expansions are “perfect storms”. This could also apply to the Nazis or French Empires, although obviously their “storms” were the result of their own special circumstances.
@rdrakken To give some perspective to this, the Chinese people have also been unified under one leader for the vast majority of their 3500 year history. yet they *never* engaged in widespread expansionist activities outside of the Chinese cultural sphere in the fashion of the Mongols. Why is that? Because the basis of their economy has always been intensive agriculture of wheat, and later rice. This kind of living does not demand the vast amounts of land that their nomadic neighbours required.
@rdrakken Hitler really is completely irrelevant, nationalism has nothing to do with this discussion. It would be rather absurd to assign nationalist ambitions to 13th century steppe nomads, after all(!)
@Accisma I see, so you reach by stating that the Mongols couldnt have created an Empire because of one person, then when not only told I never said it was but even gave you many examples of how empires were created because of ONE person you in turn REACH desperately to find ways to dismiss how they did it?!?
Oh, sorry. You cant compare Hitler and those others because it was only 99.9% the same type of situation. The mongols didnt pick their nose hairs afterall.
@rdrakken The Chinese interference in the machinations of neighbouring peoples was not an attempt to gain control, it was an attempt to save themselves – as you admit, the Chinese couldn’t control Mongolian expansions despite being much more technologically advanced and having much greater population. This is because nomadic cultures (Mongolians) expand, despite less technology, whereas settled cultures (Chinese) stay where they are and were historically rather powerless to stop the nomads.
@Accisma its rather naive to dismiss over 2000 years of history of a nation that only invaded other nations only during the times they were unified…but you have to do so because it makes your (in your own words) historically factless opinion look foolish at best.
As for your chinese dominating comment, they TRIED you idiot. They turned the Tartars against the Mongols because they COULDNT control them…god damn you know nothing about this topic.
@rdrakken It is rather naïve to assign the expansion of the Mongolians to the fact that “they could”. The Chinese could also very easily have dominated most of the peoples that surrounded them in historical times, but they had absolutely no interest in doing so, because they didn’t understand the concept of Empire or domain in the way that their neighbours the Mongols or Manchurians did. To them it was cultural, not just about land, because they had been a settled, urban people for millennia.
@rdrakken Ultimately what I’m trying to say is that “Because they could” is not a very robust way of describing history. Of course there are underlying human impulses to expand, to gain more, but these are always tempered by other environmental factors and pressures. It is only in certain socio-economic circumstances that we see these drives predominating in a society, when economic necessity aligns with psychological impulses. The expansion of plains cultures are a great example of this.
@rdrakken Hitler, Napoleon aren’t really relevant as their Empires were created within the context of Nationalism, an idea that did not exist in Khan’s time. As for Hannibal, he was a man fighting *against* an expansionist Empire. Even Alexander was from Macedonia, a northern Greek kingdom with a more arable/horse centred culture than that of the south. And the Huns were of course, well known as a nomadic people.
If the sole reason for the primacy of the mongolians was Khan, why didnt other blah blah blah.
1. I didnt say the only reason was Kahn, I said they did it because they could. But you are NUTS for saying that…
2. Alexander the Great, Atila the Hun, Hitler, Napoleon, Hannibal there are SO MANY EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT…just stop…I mentioned the mongols because they didnt do what they did because of RELIGION idiot.
@rdrakken You seem a little confused – if urbanisation and centralised rule, rather than nomadic lifestyle, is what creates large Empires, then why is it that the Mongolians were so successful in conquering nations such as China, who had these traits for far longer than the Mongols had? The explanation is in the horse culture of the Mongolians, which is a result of nomadicism. Purely settled communities do not and indeed could not display such rapid expansion.
@rdrakken To take an example from elsewhere in the world if the sole reason for the primacy of the Mongolians under Khan was his leadership skills, why didn’t similarly skilled leaders also create Empires? Why did, say, King Andrianampoinimerina of Madagascar, after he unified the Malagasy kingdoms with a result of diplomacy and war, not go on to conquer the rest of the world? The explanation lies only in the vastly different material cultures, lifestyle and geography of Madagascar and Mongolia.
@Accisma nice try but completely false, again, facts getting in the way of your complete lack of knowledege of the topic.
Ulaan Baatar, the capital city of Mongolia…home of 38% of the population…of what was a pure nomadic people before the Mongolian Empire.
The ONLY times in history the Mongols were a threat to anyone other than themselves was during the 7 times they came under 1 ruler PROVING your factless idea is 100% false.
@rdrakken nope, the basics of their economy has remained essentially the same in Outer Mongolia since before Khan’s time, and after it ! Even to this day there are many nomadic herders in this region and nearby areas of Russia, such as Tuva. As I said before, your naïvely historicist account is quite old fashioned. It would be like saying the “reason” for the settlement of the New World by Europeans was “because European people moved there”. Facts tell us very little on their own!
@Accisma Yes its true, if you throw out historical facts…you are right.
I suggest you read history yet again, the plains people before the mongolian empire were very different from the area AFTER their culture changed from the wealth of knowledge of how other peoples lived that came from trading with so many other nations.
Its amazing how much information can change your view of a subject you think you know a lot about but actually dont. but yeah, facts can get in the way cant they?
@rdrakken no offence, but that’s a very old fashioned Historicist view. Those might have been the historical facts that led to that specific instance of expansion, but such expansion would have obviously been impossible without the underlying economic/material facts of the Mongolian plains culture.
@rdrakken I’m sorry? This is the first time I’ve replied to this video, you must have me mistaken for someone else What I’ve stated is a fairly well known fact of biogeography, it’s basically essential to understanding the history of all plains cultures. The same pattern was repeated by Turkic speaking peoples in Central Asia/the Middle East, the Manchurians of what is now North China, Bantu speaking peoples in Africa, the aforementioned Plains Indians in North America, etc
@Accisma The Mongols were under Chinese rule, after a change in rulership there they lost control over Mongolia thanks to Genghis Khan who united most of the Mongloian tribes…killed any tribes that would not bend.
And then proceeded to expand and take over everyone he could.
Mongolian “lifestyle” was nothing like it was pre-Khan and had nothing to do with Genghis taking over most of the world. He did it because he could…read more please.
@Accisma Oh hi its you again? How many more times are you going to prove to everyone you dont know the topic before you stop?
I suggest some basic reading on Mongolia before speaking again…perhaps then you will realize just stupid you are for suggesting the Mongolian empire started because they were forced to expand to sustain their lifestyle…holy shit that was stupid.
@LizardKing1324 Then you don’t mind paying
extra for no commercials.
Maybe, you can start paying youtube for the
video’s they provide!
But then again, you probably want everything
for free.
When you go out with your friends, I bet
when it’s time to pay for the coffee or beer,
you’re the one who always runs to the
bathroom when the check arrives.
You sir, are as clear as glass!
@Accisma Sorry, the character limit made it a little difficult to make clear what I meant by “your theory is like swiss cheese and factless bullshit”.
Every single Empire in history had DIFFERENT socio-economic backgrounds yet still expanded WHEN they had the power to do so, Mongolia is not some special place in an alternate dimension that exists only in your mind. You can make all the claims you like, they are factless. The Mongols only expanded when unified, when they COULD.
@rdrakken Sorry, the character limit made it a little difficult to make clear what I meant by “perfect storm”: Unification under one leader provided the initial impetus, but without the underlying socio-economic facts of nomadic living the Mongolian Empire would never have came about.
So yes, it just so happened that what set off expansion was the rise of a single leader, but as the example of China and it’s 3500 years of Emperors shows, that’s not all that matters! Hope that clears it up!
@Accisma You are completely irrelevant. Your idea that historical facts are meaningless is irrelevant. The comparisons you are making are irrelevant. In fact, the only thing relevant in your posts is how they end, with a period.
Over 200 years of Mongolian history of their being nomads and the only time they expanded was when unified under one leader. Period, end of story, your theory has more holes than swiss cheese like all theories with no historical FACTS in them.
@rdrakken To go back to the very beginning of this discussion, I think the ultimate point here is that while you are correct in pointing to events such as the Mongolian expansions as evidence of underlying human traits that could be seen as negative, it would be remiss of you not to also see the very many examples of other historical events based on other, more positive, human traits – such as altruism, one of the founding principles of most societies. Not everything is as bad as it seems!
@rdrakken So what we are left with is a view of history that, yes, does agree with your assessment that peoples expand because they can – but more accurately, it is that peoples expand because they can *and* when an expansionist drive is supported by underlying economic and cultural traits. Events such as the Mongolian expansions are “perfect storms”. This could also apply to the Nazis or French Empires, although obviously their “storms” were the result of their own special circumstances.
@rdrakken To give some perspective to this, the Chinese people have also been unified under one leader for the vast majority of their 3500 year history. yet they *never* engaged in widespread expansionist activities outside of the Chinese cultural sphere in the fashion of the Mongols. Why is that? Because the basis of their economy has always been intensive agriculture of wheat, and later rice. This kind of living does not demand the vast amounts of land that their nomadic neighbours required.
@rdrakken Hitler really is completely irrelevant, nationalism has nothing to do with this discussion. It would be rather absurd to assign nationalist ambitions to 13th century steppe nomads, after all(!)
@Accisma I see, so you reach by stating that the Mongols couldnt have created an Empire because of one person, then when not only told I never said it was but even gave you many examples of how empires were created because of ONE person you in turn REACH desperately to find ways to dismiss how they did it?!?
Oh, sorry. You cant compare Hitler and those others because it was only 99.9% the same type of situation. The mongols didnt pick their nose hairs afterall.
@rdrakken The Chinese interference in the machinations of neighbouring peoples was not an attempt to gain control, it was an attempt to save themselves – as you admit, the Chinese couldn’t control Mongolian expansions despite being much more technologically advanced and having much greater population. This is because nomadic cultures (Mongolians) expand, despite less technology, whereas settled cultures (Chinese) stay where they are and were historically rather powerless to stop the nomads.
@Accisma its rather naive to dismiss over 2000 years of history of a nation that only invaded other nations only during the times they were unified…but you have to do so because it makes your (in your own words) historically factless opinion look foolish at best.
As for your chinese dominating comment, they TRIED you idiot. They turned the Tartars against the Mongols because they COULDNT control them…god damn you know nothing about this topic.
@rdrakken It is rather naïve to assign the expansion of the Mongolians to the fact that “they could”. The Chinese could also very easily have dominated most of the peoples that surrounded them in historical times, but they had absolutely no interest in doing so, because they didn’t understand the concept of Empire or domain in the way that their neighbours the Mongols or Manchurians did. To them it was cultural, not just about land, because they had been a settled, urban people for millennia.
@rdrakken Ultimately what I’m trying to say is that “Because they could” is not a very robust way of describing history. Of course there are underlying human impulses to expand, to gain more, but these are always tempered by other environmental factors and pressures. It is only in certain socio-economic circumstances that we see these drives predominating in a society, when economic necessity aligns with psychological impulses. The expansion of plains cultures are a great example of this.
@rdrakken Hitler, Napoleon aren’t really relevant as their Empires were created within the context of Nationalism, an idea that did not exist in Khan’s time. As for Hannibal, he was a man fighting *against* an expansionist Empire. Even Alexander was from Macedonia, a northern Greek kingdom with a more arable/horse centred culture than that of the south. And the Huns were of course, well known as a nomadic people.
@Accisma wow what a great question!
If the sole reason for the primacy of the mongolians was Khan, why didnt other blah blah blah.
1. I didnt say the only reason was Kahn, I said they did it because they could. But you are NUTS for saying that…
2. Alexander the Great, Atila the Hun, Hitler, Napoleon, Hannibal there are SO MANY EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT…just stop…I mentioned the mongols because they didnt do what they did because of RELIGION idiot.
@rdrakken You seem a little confused – if urbanisation and centralised rule, rather than nomadic lifestyle, is what creates large Empires, then why is it that the Mongolians were so successful in conquering nations such as China, who had these traits for far longer than the Mongols had? The explanation is in the horse culture of the Mongolians, which is a result of nomadicism. Purely settled communities do not and indeed could not display such rapid expansion.
@rdrakken To take an example from elsewhere in the world if the sole reason for the primacy of the Mongolians under Khan was his leadership skills, why didn’t similarly skilled leaders also create Empires? Why did, say, King Andrianampoinimerina of Madagascar, after he unified the Malagasy kingdoms with a result of diplomacy and war, not go on to conquer the rest of the world? The explanation lies only in the vastly different material cultures, lifestyle and geography of Madagascar and Mongolia.
@Accisma nice try but completely false, again, facts getting in the way of your complete lack of knowledege of the topic.
Ulaan Baatar, the capital city of Mongolia…home of 38% of the population…of what was a pure nomadic people before the Mongolian Empire.
The ONLY times in history the Mongols were a threat to anyone other than themselves was during the 7 times they came under 1 ruler PROVING your factless idea is 100% false.
@rdrakken nope, the basics of their economy has remained essentially the same in Outer Mongolia since before Khan’s time, and after it
! Even to this day there are many nomadic herders in this region and nearby areas of Russia, such as Tuva. As I said before, your naïvely historicist account is quite old fashioned. It would be like saying the “reason” for the settlement of the New World by Europeans was “because European people moved there”. Facts tell us very little on their own!
@Accisma Yes its true, if you throw out historical facts…you are right.
I suggest you read history yet again, the plains people before the mongolian empire were very different from the area AFTER their culture changed from the wealth of knowledge of how other peoples lived that came from trading with so many other nations.
Its amazing how much information can change your view of a subject you think you know a lot about but actually dont. but yeah, facts can get in the way cant they?
this guy sucks
@rdrakken no offence, but that’s a very old fashioned Historicist view. Those might have been the historical facts that led to that specific instance of expansion, but such expansion would have obviously been impossible without the underlying economic/material facts of the Mongolian plains culture.
@rdrakken I’m sorry? This is the first time I’ve replied to this video, you must have me mistaken for someone else
What I’ve stated is a fairly well known fact of biogeography, it’s basically essential to understanding the history of all plains cultures. The same pattern was repeated by Turkic speaking peoples in Central Asia/the Middle East, the Manchurians of what is now North China, Bantu speaking peoples in Africa, the aforementioned Plains Indians in North America, etc 
@Accisma The Mongols were under Chinese rule, after a change in rulership there they lost control over Mongolia thanks to Genghis Khan who united most of the Mongloian tribes…killed any tribes that would not bend.
And then proceeded to expand and take over everyone he could.
Mongolian “lifestyle” was nothing like it was pre-Khan and had nothing to do with Genghis taking over most of the world. He did it because he could…read more please.
@Accisma Oh hi its you again? How many more times are you going to prove to everyone you dont know the topic before you stop?
I suggest some basic reading on Mongolia before speaking again…perhaps then you will realize just stupid you are for suggesting the Mongolian empire started because they were forced to expand to sustain their lifestyle…holy shit that was stupid.
@LizardKing1324 Then you don’t mind paying
extra for no commercials.
Maybe, you can start paying youtube for the
video’s they provide!
But then again, you probably want everything
for free.
When you go out with your friends, I bet
when it’s time to pay for the coffee or beer,
you’re the one who always runs to the
bathroom when the check arrives.
You sir, are as clear as glass!