Roman Empire Versus Mongol Empire: Thoughts?

At Each Kilometer said:

.. for what: four decades? Until its disintegration in 1259 into four khanates followed by kin wars between the descendants of Temujin like the one between Hulagu and Berke, lets not forget the brotherly love Kublai felt at the time. Short-lived empire indeed. EDIT: In comparison with the Roman one at least.

Click to expand...

The Yuan dynasty was a direct continuation of the Mongol Empire, and it alone was 2.5 times the size of the Roman Empire, had a navy that controlled the East and South China Seas, extending north from the Arctic to Java in the south, and campaigning against Japan and Kamchatka in the east to the Pamirs in the west. Most of continental Southeast Asia was its vassal. It dominated the Eastern Eurasian part of the world and had the other Qanates recognizing its suzerainty by 1304. The Yuan had over a quarter of the world's population in the early 14th century, and together with all the other Qanates, had over 30% of the world's population compared to probably no more than 1/4 for the Roman Empire. Even in 1258, we are talking about a state whose geographical extent, political and economic dominance was arguably greater than that of the USSR in the 20th century. Furthermore, the Mongol Empire was an exporter of technology, knowledge and cultural exchange; gunpowder, crossbows, and canons were spread westwards, counterweight trebuchets and Middle Eastern astronomy spread east. Knolwedge of the world improved significantly everywhere. Merchants from the Middle East traveled to China and vice versa, and Chinese travelors went as far as the Arctic Ocean. In Persia, the Mongol era was a time where historical writing increased significantly (probably partly due to the influence of the Sino-Mongolian historical traditions). In China, the Yuan was an era where plays, paintings, and Buddhist practices blossomed. Religious exchange reached a new level. Paper money usage and merchant tax reached a level unseen at anytime before the 19th century.
Geo-politically, the Mongol conquest created the modern state of Russia, the unified Ming dynasty of China, the end of the Caliphate and the rise of numerous states of Persia, the rise of the Uzbeks and Khazakh Qanates in Central Asia, the rise of Sakyapa in Tibet, the fall of Koryo in Korea, and the creation of Siam and the numerous Burmese states in Southeast Asia.
In fact, the Mongol conquest forged the modern world that we know it whereas the collapse of Rome only had significant immediate affects in the Mediterranean and the surrounding areas.

heavenlykaghan said:

In fact, the Mongol conquest forged the modern world that we know it whereas the collapse of Rome only had significant immediate affects in the Mediterranean and the surrounding areas.

Click to expand...

I would question that by looking at Christianity as taken up by Rome and thenceforth became like a spiritual force of applying pressure to monarchs around Europe.

heavenlykaghan said:

The Yuan dynasty was a direct continuation of the Mongol Empire, and it alone was 2.5 times the size of the Roman Empire, had a navy that controlled the East and South China Seas, extending north from the Arctic to Java in the south

Click to expand...

The way I have read and understood it, them Mongols got duped by one Javanese kingdom into helping them beat a rival faction in the kingdom, whose recently deceased king was the one responsible for humiliating and disfiguring Kubilay's first trade envoy.

Then those 'victorious' Javanese 'allies' of theirs turned on them during some celebration feast, after having got them well and truly drunk.

Then they just ran to their ships and left Java. For good.
How a Javanese King Defeated a Powerful Mongolian Emperor? - Seasia.co

Frederick Bismarck said:

Perhaps the two most fascinating military empires in history are the Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire. Though they existed in different locations and across different time periods, with different challenges and different cultures, they can still be analyzed to determine which was greater or which was more capable. In my opinion, an hefty argument can be made for Rome being the greater of the two due to the greater impact it exerts on today's society, though sheer numbers seem to lean toward the Mongol Empire.

Click to expand...

An interesting question. I see Rome's empire and the Mongols as very different creatures, that cannot be simply "measured" as one being "greater" than the other.

Rome's impact in history is so great its impossible to do it justice in a short forum post. That is because Rome gradually transformed the ancient mediterranean world, which was originally made of city-states and small kingdoms (like Egypt and Mauretania), into a unified world empire. At first, Rome was just a hegemonic power like the US was in the 1990s, then Rome started annexing all these lands. Eventually, Rome's empire became a centralized territorial state with vast bureacracy.

After a few centuries Rome's centralized world empire started to disintegrate and the kingdoms that emerged from the fall of Roman Empire constituted what we today understand as medieval Europe. Then, in more recent centuries, European countries eventually colonized most of the planet. As a result, today most countries in the world are in a sense descended from the Roman Empire. For example, the US and India were colonies of the former Roman province of Britannia, Mexico and the Philippines, colonies from the Roman province of Hispania.

In regards to the Mongols. Their vast empire was never a centralized state with a professional bureacracy. It was an empire of conquest stablished by a seminomad tribal confederation, very much like the Hunnic Empire in late antiquity. That was the case at least until the Mongol Empire started to split across the conquered territories and the Mongols often became heads of dynastic empires: China being ruled by the Yuan dynasty, for example.

Some historians argue that the Mongol conquests were very important in shaping the modern world because the Mongols destroyed lots of traditional empires in the 13th Century. However, I make the counterpoint that the Mongols conquered these empires and just replaced the ruling dynasties with Mongols, not really changing things very much in the long run: for example, in China they replaced the Song rulers with Yuan which didn't last long as native Ming came soon after. One important exception is the enduring impact of the Mongol invasions on the Russian psyche. The autocratic institutions of the Russian Empire were heavily influenced by the experience of Mongol invasions.

Overall, I see the Mongol Empire as an empire of disruption like Alexander's empire (which also didn't fundamentally change things IMO). While the Roman Empire was an empire of consolidation, that by forming and then desintegrating, had transformed the ancient world into the medieval world.

Faramir said:

I would question that by looking at Christianity as taken up by Rome and thenceforth became like a spiritual force of applying pressure to monarchs around Europe.

Click to expand...

Which is largely restricted to the area around the Mediterranean. People who argue the Mongols lack bureaucracy and centralization are ignoring how the Yuan alone had a more sophisticated bureaucracy and was more centralized relatively speaking compared to the Roman Empire and it was 2.5 times the size of the latter too. Focusing on the Mongol element itself and claiming that its a disruption of other already exiting empires is rather misleading, as it ignores the post-conquest empires the Mongols established, and that the Mongol Empire was a multi-ethnic empire in the same way the Roman Empire was, and not just the state of the Mongols alone.

These two empires are very different from each other. In terms of technology and contribution to world civilization, of course, the Roman Empire is much better. There is absolutely nothing to argue about here. But I would like to focus on structural construction and the doctrine of two empires.
As you know, the origin of people in the Roman Empire played a big role. Since Rome was founded by the Romans (Populus Romanus Quiritium) who were aristocrats
Whereas the Mongol Empire was created solely by the efforts of one person, Genghis Khan. Therefore, only the descendants of Genghis Khan were aristocrats in the Mongol Empire, and all the rest belonged to the common people (qarachi - black).
There was no certain nation called “Mongols”, like the current Khalkha, Buryat, or Kalmyk. In the 12th and 13th centuries, there were many tribes of various origins (Jalair, Kiyat, Tatar, Kereit, Naiman, Uyghur, Oirat, Kirghiz, Kongurat, etc.), which were united by Genghis Khan. So, the term "Mongols" in the 13th century was a political term.

Magzhan said:

There was no certain nation called “Mongols”, like the current Khalkha, Buryat, or Kalmyk. In the 12th and 13th centuries, there were many tribes of various origins (Jalair, Kiyat, Tatar, Kereit, Naiman, Uyghur, Oirat, Kirghiz, Kongurat, etc.), which were united by Genghis Khan.e

Click to expand...

Magzhan said:

So, the term "Mongols" in the 13th century was a political term.

Click to expand...

So, where or what did the name Mongol originate from, ultimately?

Dreamhunter said:

So, where or what did the name Mongol originate from, ultimately?

Click to expand...

Today, there is no unanimous answer to this question. The Compendium of Chronicles contains the following interpretation of this word:

Finally Oghuz
triumphed, seizing the land from Talas and
Sayram to Bukhara, and the realm submitted to
him. Some of his uncles and nephews who had
joined him made their habitation in the east,
and in their view it is established that the
entirety of the Mongols are descended from
them. At that time all were heathens, but with
the passage of time they and their families too
became monotheists.

Click to expand...

The word Mongol was originally mong ol, which means “left behind” and “simpleton.”

Click to expand...

I think the Compendium of Chronicles means that they subsequently became Nestorian Christians. As is known, the large tribes of Genghis Khan, like the Keraits and Naimans, were definitely Nestorian Christians.

Of course there were Mongols in 12-13th century and it was not just a 'political term' whatever that means.

Well, I have also heard something similar from another Kazakh friend in another forum, some years back.

She was also kind of saying that the Mongol name was kind of pushed and promoted only with the rise of Temujin to become Genghiz Khan.

TBCH, I have no dog in this fight lol, and I do not really know which horse to back on this issue.

I wouldn't trust what Kazakhs say. They tend to do silly pseudohistory or something like that.

Here what Mongol mean:

"
The name Mongolia means the "Land of the Mongols" in Latin. The Mongolian word "Mongol"(монгол) is of uncertain etymology, given variously as the name of a mountain or river; as a corruption of the Mongolian Mongkhe-tengri-gal("Eternal Sky Fire");[13] or as a derivation from Mugulü, the 4th-century founder of the Rouran Khaganate,[14] first attested as the 'Mungu',[15](Chinese: 蒙兀, Modern Chinese Měngwù, Middle Chinese Muwngu[16]), a branch of the Shiwei in an 8th-century Tang dynasty list of northern tribes, presumably related to the Liao-era Mungku[15] (Chinese: 蒙古, Modern ChineseMěnggǔ, Middle Chinese MuwngkuX[17]).

After the fall of the Liao in 1125, the Khamag Mongols became a leading tribe on the Mongolian Plateau. However, their wars with the Jurchen-ruled Jin dynasty and the Tatar confederation had weakened them. The last head of the tribe was Yesügei, whose son Temüjineventually united all the Shiwei tribes as the Mongol Empire (Yekhe Monggol Ulus). In the thirteenth century, the word Mongol grew into an umbrella term for a large group of Mongolic-speaking tribes united under the rule of Genghis Khan.[18]

Since the adoption of the new Constitution of Mongolia on 13 February 1992, the official name of the state is "Mongolia" (Mongol Uls)."

Sephiroth said:

Of course there were Mongols in 12-13th century and it was not just a 'political term' whatever that means.

Click to expand...

As always, you imagine that the “Mongols of Genghis Khan” were a kind of nation like the current Khalkhas. Any historian will tell you that the term "Mongols" in the 12th century was a political term for tribes united by Genghis Khan. From historical primary sources, we know many names of the tribes of Genghis Khan (Jalair, Kiyat, Tatar, Kereit, Naiman, Uyghur, Oirat, Kirghiz, Kongurat, etc.).
Can you say which of these tribes, in your opinion, made up “the Mongol nation" in the 12th and 13th centuries?
I ask you to justify your answers.

I quote from myself the respected British historian David Morgan.

Magzhan said:

As always, you imagine that the “Mongols of Genghis Khan” were a kind of nation like the current Khalkhas. Any historian will tell you that the term "Mongols" in the 12th century was a political term for tribes united by Genghis Khan. From historical primary sources, we know many names of the tribes of Genghis Khan (Jalair, Kiyat, Tatar, Kereit, Naiman, Uyghur, Oirat, Kirghiz, Kongurat, etc.).
Can you say which of these tribes, in your opinion, made up “the Mongol nation" in the 12th and 13th centuries?
I ask you to justify your answers.

I quote from myself the respected British historian David Morgan.

View attachment 65514

Click to expand...

We had this discussion several times and it gets tiring. Yes you can look up the medieval Mongol tribes and I've shown them to you already.

Seriously wth?

Sephiroth said:

We had this discussion several times and it gets tiring. Yes you can look up the medieval Mongol tribes and I've shown them to you already.

Seriously wth?

Click to expand...

Indeed, I always ask you this question, and, as always, you avoid answering.

Okay, are you saying that before Genghis Khan, these tribes were called “Shiwei tribes”?

The last head of the tribe was Yesügei, whose son Temüjineventually united all the Shiwei tribes as the Mongol Empire (Yekhe Monggol Ulus).

Click to expand...

In general, in historical primary sources about Genghis Khan, there is no mention of Shiwei tribes.

Magzhan said:

Indeed, I always ask you this question, and, as always, you avoid answering.

Okay, are you saying that before Genghis Khan, these tribes were called “Shiwei tribes”?



In general, in historical primary sources about Genghis Khan, there is no mention of Shiwei tribes.

Click to expand...

Yes that is from a Chinese source and is not definitive and badically an assumption. And this is obvious. But how delusionsl can one be to go against basically all the historians, hoe presumptious to think one knows better against all odds?

Sephiroth said:

Yes that is from a Chinese source and is not definitive and badically an assumption. And this is obvious. But how delusionsl can one be to go against basically all the historians, hoe presumptious to think one knows better against all odds?

Click to expand...

Show me or quote, please, where it is written that the tribes of Genghis Khan were called “Shiwei tribes”?

Also, I am not going against respected and recognized historians; I even quote them with pleasure; above, I quoted the British historian David Morgan.

Anyway, someone correct me if I am wrong, regarding that legend of Ashina, that one is like the foundation legend for Turkic peoples only, as I have read and understood it.

So, kind of just wondering, if Mongol peoples have a similar legend like that.

Magzhan said:

Show me or quote, please, where it is written that the tribes of Genghis Khan were called “Shiwei tribes”?

Click to expand...

During the Tang dynasty it is ASSUMED the Mongols were among the so called Shiwei tribes. These were tribes the Tang called so. I have no idea what use the original Chinese source would have for you since only the Chinese called them so. Like they gave names to the Xiongnu, Xianbei etc. or the Hu for all the northern tribes very early on etc. This is of no meaning.

Magzhan said:

Also, I am not going against respected and recognized historians; I even quote them with pleasure; above, I quoted the British historian David Morgan.

Click to expand...

What he is talking about is that it is uncertain whether some of the Mongol tribes were Turkic speaking or Mongolic and so on. So for example the Onguds were maybe once a Turkic speaking tribe that became Mongolic speaking. But without a doubt the core Mongol tribes, including Genghis Khan, were Mongolic speaking. Basically the Turks became Mongols, speaking Mongolian.

Sephiroth said:

What he is talking about is that it is uncertain whether some of the Mongol tribes were Turkic speaking or Mongolic and so on.

Click to expand...

It is not correct to distort the words of historians.
David Morgan wrote "The tribes of Mongolia in the twelfth century have to be described as “Turko-Mongol".
He writes about the territory (Mongolia), not about "Mongolian tribes". He specifically points out that these lands were inhabited by nomads who can be described as “Turko-Mongols.” At the same time, he means language groups, not nations.
Present-day Mongolia as a Khalkho-Mongol-speaking country was formed later under the rule of the Oirats. After the Oirats, Mongolia was ruled by the Manchus for a long time until the 20th century. So, it is not entirely correct to compare the Khalkhas of the 20th century with the Turko-Mongol tribes of the 12th century.
For example, one cannot equate ancient England, inhabited by Celtic tribes, with the current English nation.