I always thought it was because the steppe ended in roughly where Hungary is today. Couldn’t feed their horses or create a supply line deep into Europe proper. It was also too decentralized to just sack one or two cities and have the whole continent. Realistically, it was probably due to internal politics though. They couldn’t manage an empire of that size without serious reform.
Didn’t they stop at russian forests where their horses became useless?
The Mongols couldn’t handle forests.
More like they got lucky they stumbled onto a land teeming with resources that saw war as an exhibition sport and not a “who can do the most genocide” competition.
How was the destruction wrought by the Mongols “incurred” - do you think they’re god’s punishment for something?
“If you had not committed such great sins, Heaven would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
Yes
My jeans have a gusseted crotch.
My Wrangler jeans are so tough they can’t even be destroyed by the NX-5 planet destroyer
My jeans are superior because they have thick, double-stitched belt loops and deep front pockets.
My genes on the other hand are a hot mess partially responsible for my lifelong suicidal depression. Thanks Mom.
You’re half right. White people are not superior. HOWEVER… Your argument as to why is complete trash. The Mongol empire as impressive as it was didn’t touch SE Asia, India, most of Russia, the entire fucking continent of Africa, or anywhere not connected to Eurasia. Also it wasn’t the Mongols who burned the great library of Alexandria.
Where did I applaud the Mongols? Also, they burned the Library of Baghdad.
Strawman. Original Commenter (OC) didn’t say you applauded the Mongols. All we’re doing in this thread is correcting facts, not applying judgements
They’re just saying that many other parts of the world weren’t scourged by Mongols so the theory that Europe rose to prominence because it was spared doesn’t really hold water.
That’s if I understood them correctly.
The post is a jab at the recent controversy on Sydney Sweeney ad for American Eagle jeans, claiming there is white supremacist undertone, not about being spared from the Mongol invasion itself is what lifts societies to prominence.
Do you have any idea of how much war and destruction the European countries have committed against each other? It is not so simple as to say “peace is the only driver of prosperity and science”.
You can’t really dismiss the main text of the post and claim the subtext makes it irrelevant.
Europe was considered a backwater fringe by the time the Mongols under Subutai arrived. I mean, if Europe is inherently superior, it would not have been considered as “backwater” in the first place. The more prosperous and more developed areas then were Middle East, Central Asia and the Far East. If the Mongols continued advancing and ravaged those who did not submit, Europe would have been set back a lot further or may not even have ever become the major power as it did. Being unscathed by the Mongol destruction gave them a leg up later. It is very much the same story as the USA. US was considered second or at the very least third rate by Europeans. But not being destroyed by the Second World War and one of the two remaining major economy and manufacturing country gave US it the massive advantage post-war.
A couple of things come to mind.
Didn’t the mongols ravage poland? That’s Europe. Meaning Europe did not get spared.
European philosophy and math started back with ancient greece. They were ahead of the rest of the world in geometry and math in the year 1000 B. C.
But empires come and go. The next empire took the science and further improved. The romans, Macedonians, ottomans etc. Europe is not one people.
At the time of the mongols the Catholics were in charge of most of Europe. Kingdoms were organized. “Backwater” might be a bit of a stretch?
There was war between the Christians and the Muslims at the time so Europeans might have been expecting attack. It might have been very difficult for the mongols to conquer the European territories.
Millions of Europeans preferred USA over europe for the last three centuries because the opportunities were scarce. Europeans were mainly a farmer people so land was equal to prosperity. They gave out farm land for free back then. Which one would you prefer?
Europeans crusading in the Middle East praised the Mongols (under the Prester John myth) as they crushed their muslim enemies.
Meanwhile Europeans prayed for a savior against the other branch Mongols spreading across Russian lands.
It’a been 20 years but I seem to remember it was the Mongols in the north of Europe that secured tributary vassals and opted not to return to Mongolia for electing a new Khan and the lineage of Jochi became rather independent. They moved south around the Black and Caspian Seas instead.
“I can say that as a pun but you can’t, na na na-na na”.
I think I know how to stop white supremacy. We take all the white supremacists, we put them in one place. Then we explain to them the scientific method and how science actually supports equality.
And then, after they all listened, we take all those papers and we shove them up their ass!
Thank you Stanley.
They’re an existential threat to our species so I’m totally ok with giving them their own nation as a quarantine measure. They would immediately declare war when they realize their society/economy is dysfunctional either due to global ostracization or not having access to legacy wealth accruing mechanisms created during colonial times. The question is if America would come to their rescue as they have for the worlds other “favorite” ethnostate.
Does Nazi Fascistostan have a right to exist?
My jeans are Calvin Klein. They are superior because they are mine.
I read a theory somewhere that the Mongols use of dead bodies as weapons is major factor creating the black plague.
This theory is on Wikipedia:
Some studies indicate the Black Death, which devastated Europe in the 1340s, may have traveled from China along the trade routes of the Mongol Empire. In 1347, the Genoese possessor of Caffa, a great trade emporium on the Crimean Peninsula, came under siege by an army of Mongol warriors under the command of Janibeg. After a protracted siege during which the Mongol army was reportedly withering from disease, they decided to use the infected corpses as a biological weapon. The corpses were catapulted over the city walls, infecting the inhabitants.[142][143] The Genoese traders fled, transferring the plague via their ships into the south of Europe, from where it rapidly spread. The total number of deaths worldwide from the pandemic is estimated at 75–200 million with up to 50 million deaths in Europe alone.[103]
Plaque isn’t spread by corpses, but by fleas
https://historycollection.com/mongols-used-plague-biological-weapon/
It also is spread by the buboes on the bodies that rupture and spread infected pus and bloos. Throw a bunch of bodies over a wall and one will eventually infect someone inside, who will infect everyone else.
I mean… theorethically it could have helped spread it to the particular city, but I don’t think that would’ve influenced the epidemic spread of the disease much. Locked-in besieged cities would -in themselves- been prime locations for the disease to teke hold.
In fact, your own article basicly states as much:
However, there’s no reason to tie the biological attack at Caffa with the introduction of the disease.
Meh. Dad nailed it. “Son, we’re not the best race, we’re the most violent.”
Been thinking on that for 30 years. Still rings true.
People are people. We are more a product of our environments than any innate differences.
Europeans and their descendants have had environmental pressures that led to certain advantages which they were willing to capitalize on globally. The inhumanity involved was predicated on dehumanizing other peoples and cultures, giving birth to white supremacy. The resultant industrialization they sought after has wreaked havoc on our planet and may bring our species to extinction through climate change.
I appreciate where your dad was coming from. It’s disappointing that we live in a world where your father even had to challenge such a proposterous notion (racial superiority).
But white people are not more violent. In the same way, I don’t see any accomplishment by a white person as unique to their race. They are human accomplishments first and, in my view, could have been achieved by any person in the same environmental circumstances.
I don’t even see white people as an amalgamation anymore. Or any ‘race’ for that matter. My ancestors are Indian so you can imagine we don’t all see or refer to ourselves as just Indian (an identity that within it holds 1500 dialects). I don’t think it’s a meaningful designation. It’s happenstance.
I’m much more interested in the specifics. Particularily, defining and understanding a persons worldview. If youre a person that tries to put people on a hierarchical ladder based on arbitrary physical traits, we’re probably not going to vibe. If you’re someone that understands that identity is fluid and evolves over time (just as our values might) and have a goal of making life better for ourselves and others then I would reassert what I said earlier. We are more similar than we are different.
If the Aztecs had sea worthy warships they probably would have tried to conquer North America as well.
This was a common argument used in the colonial era and is actually a common rationalization used by sociopaths (if you had my ability you’d hurt people too).
But the Aztecs were known for their military conquest of other tribes.
We can speculate they’d hop on a boat and do that but the reality is only one region of the world actually did it on a scale that was globally disruptive in recent history.
In any case, it’s still a sociopathic argument that relies on gaslighting.
Did you forget about the Japanese? They got western tech and then started colonizing Asia. And that was also globally disruptive.
Also why you keep calling me a sociopath. fucking loser
Never said Westerners were the only imperialists. But the scale of their foreign interference, in recent times, is unmatched. The Japanese mostly stayed within East Asia.
Also you’re not a sociopath. The argument that you suggested is sociopathic though.
The lesson was supposed to be “Son, races aren’t actually a thing, they’re a categorical method of sorting people into groups based on variable forms of bigotry. Where one race begins and another ends is as arbitrary as the lines we draw in the sand.”
Not turning the white supremacy around into some kind of self-hating racism. That makes about as much sense as the white supremacy. And progresses the human race about as far.
In 8th grade I was talking to my bff who is half Druze and my buddy Dan whose family immigrated from Portugal about how it’s weird that Dan is “white” and yet has a dark brown skin tone while my BFF was not despite having a similar skin tone to myself who is very white.
I went to a pretty mixed high school and a lot of people there decided it was okay to be racist to white people. I asked my Portuguese friend why he didn’t have a problem with it, and he said because he’s not white. Same with my Polish friend. Same with my Portuguese teacher.
Apparently you can earn all the benefits of white privilege while not self-identifying as white, and as long as you aren’t calling yourself “Irish”, people are okay with that.
Dad’s point of view had nothing to do with self-hate, to him it was merely a statement of fact.
Dad’s point of view had nothing to do with self-hate, to him it was merely a statement of
factopinion.Fine. Let’s have some reading comprehension.
to him it was merely a statement of fact
The speaker is repeating an opinion given by the subject of the sentence.
Jesus fuck me. Some of you people are so intent on delivering a sick burn you can’t stop to parse a single sentence.
Denying diferencess actually regresses the human race. What should be thought is that personal and cultural differences have much bigger influence over behaviour then biological ones. And that humans have this thing called a brain, whos internal wiring can be changed to different levels of being an asshole.
If you don’t accept the basic thing, you won’t understand the advanced one.
Lumping people into groups and applying attributes to those people based on the groups they find themselves in denies the individual their right to be different.
Hence I said that it is far less important then individual and cultural differences. But I guess being righteous is more important then reading.
Who said anything about “denying differences”?
“races arn’t actually a thing”
Race isn’t the only thing that differentiates people…
Hence the rest of what I said. But yea, being right is more important then… anything.
I guess saying things like “asians have lower lactose tolerance” is also racist, even though I am also lactose intolerant.
Than*
Some people seem to base their entire personality on their race and/or sexuality.
Have you ever heard of the history of Asia?
