Question For You All Regarding The "Mongols" ( History Buffs Welcome )

[michael94]

Do you really believe the country above China was responsible for the largest empire ever known? I mean even ignoring the lack of evidence ( besides what is written in his-story books ), does it even make intuitive sense? Doesn't it make more sense that the 'Mongol' Empire was in fact a collection of Slavic and Asiatic tribes centered around Russia? Because it was and still is...

 

[Matt1951]

Yes, I do believe. Mongols conquered China through divide and conquer. That gave the Mongols access to some superior military technology, in addition to their own superior military tactics. Some argue that over time, the Mongols became allies with the Russian royalty. However, there is no doubt of the Mongol military conquests.
Mongol military tactics and organization - Wikipedia

 

[Tarmander]

Empire may not be the correct word. More like a loosely held group of peoples through military domination. You should define what empire means in this context. As far as the bureaucratic and regulatory states that occurred in Rome and the west...I do not think it really compares. The accounts of shock and awe from the Europeans who faced the mongols lends credit to their ferocity and prowess in war.

Most of my knowledge is around Ghengis and the couple generations after him. He was a plague, worse maybe. He created wastelands that lacked human life and called it his territory. Is that empire?

 

[x-ray peat]

Do you really believe the country above China was responsible for the largest empire ever known? I mean even ignoring the lack of evidence ( besides what is written in his-story books ), does it even make intuitive sense? Doesn't it make more sense that the 'Mongol' Empire was in fact a collection of Slavic and Asiatic tribes centered around Russia? Because it was and still is...

Its been said that history is a collection of lies agreed upon by the victors but that doesn't make revisionist history any better. Its usually an even worse set of lies. The "truest" history if that even exists, is what is given in the written accounts and first histories written nearest the time of the event. After that "history" is successively modified as appropriate to the political strategies of the ruling elite in every generation. Often multiple versions of history are presented at the same time to keep us divided while the truth is kept hidden away.

 

[michael94]

Its been said that history is a collection of lies agreed upon by the victors but that doesn't make revisionist history any better. Its usually an even worse set of lies. The "truest" history if that even exists, is what is given in the written accounts and first histories written nearest the time of the event. After that "history" is successively modified as appropriate to the political strategies of the ruling elite in every generation. Often multiple versions of history are presented at the same time to keep us divided while the truth is kept hidden away.

The Mongol fraud is just one of the more obvious ones. The claims surrounding the so-called Mongol Empire are so incredible and outlandish that one must require equally incredible evidence in support of them... And I am talking about the idea that the Mongol empire sprang from modern day Mongolia, not that it never existed. Russia on the other hand there is a lot more reason to believe because we have seen a similar Russian Empire in the last 100 years. It is like if I go and eat all the food in your fridge and say your neighbor's 3 year old daughter ate it, and the evidence I have to prove this is that your food is gone. LOL. Ok and now imagine as the girl gets older she takes on my first name as a nickname and my name is later changed. People can say, remember when "Michael" ate all the food in your fridge? Are they referring to me or the little girl? That is basically what has happened with the Mongols. They were given this nickname ( probably sometime in the 17 to 1800s ) that originated in Europe ( Mongol = Great One ) and all this history behind the real "Great Ones" became associated with Mongolia. Anatoly Fomenko does a good job of explaining this but you don't even need to read his books to begin to question such absurdities.

 

[michael94]

 

[michael94]

Hey you....Did you know your ancestors were born of the Gods themselves? The home of Western Civilization? On top of that people are going to pay you royalties for the honor of visiting this sacred land...

L M A O. Greece in a nutshell

 

[michael94]

Carbon Dating (C14 Crash short older version)
✓ FRAUD

 

[x-ray peat]

Like I said revisionist history is often worse than the original lie. Did you even watch that video? Not one fact to support his claims. The reason that the oldest manuscripts of these ancient texts are only 500 years old is that over time the papyrus or animal skins they were written on wasn't preserved and would fall apart after a certain length of time. That is why the Monks were so busy copying everything onto new scrolls. I am sure that they had edited out a bunch of stuff we are not supposed to know but saying that ancient Greece didn't exist is just silly.

 

[lvysaur]

"Hey Titus, look at all these pink barbarians. I bet they'll never amount to anything."

 

[DrJ]

What evidence is there that Genghis Khan was a red head? • /r/AskHistorians

 

[sladerunner69]

Do you really believe the country above China was responsible for the largest empire ever known? I mean even ignoring the lack of evidence ( besides what is written in his-story books ), does it even make intuitive sense? Doesn't it make more sense that the 'Mongol' Empire was in fact a collection of Slavic and Asiatic tribes centered around Russia? Because it was and still is...

The mongol empire was vast and one of the largest in hsitory but only by technicality. They gained a reputation as being an unbeatable army because they were the first to effectively employ mounted archers in huge numbers. They were mobile, and could skirmish any other army by circling the enemy and launching a torrent of arrows from relatively strong bows used by master archers, as every mongol horseman would train with a bow from a young age. They would ride with a herd of maybe a million horses. You can read about the mongol horse battles and why they were so effective, but its mainly because they used cheap fire and retret tactics and nobody could catch up to them to fight hand to hand combat.

After defeeating so many armies and conquering a few ation states and tribes they would simply tax the tribe and allow them to carry on whatever traditions and culture they orginially had. After gaining a reputation as a collossal army that was impossible to stand up to, they would strike deals with the pepe of whatever land they rode into- pay our taxes and we will defend you or don't pay and we will slaughter all your men and set your town ablaze. The choce was usually simple...

But really their "empire" was just a balckmail tax on faraway nations, the only mognolian part was at home in mongolia.

 

[sladerunner69]

The Mongol fraud is just one of the more obvious ones. The claims surrounding the so-called Mongol Empire are so incredible and outlandish that one must require equally incredible evidence in support of them... And I am talking about the idea that the Mongol empire sprang from modern day Mongolia, not that it never existed. Russia on the other hand there is a lot more reason to believe because we have seen a similar Russian Empire in the last 100 years. It is like if I go and eat all the food in your fridge and say your neighbor's 3 year old daughter ate it, and the evidence I have to prove this is that your food is gone. LOL. Ok and now imagine as the girl gets older she takes on my first name as a nickname and my name is later changed. People can say, remember when "Michael" ate all the food in your fridge? Are they referring to me or the little girl? That is basically what has happened with the Mongols. They were given this nickname ( probably sometime in the 17 to 1800s ) that originated in Europe ( Mongol = Great One ) and all this history behind the real "Great Ones" became associated with Mongolia. Anatoly Fomenko does a good job of explaining this but you don't even need to read his books to begin to question such absurdities.

What is your point? They can trace the first horses back to the steppe of mongolia. There is evidence of many battle sbetween the mongolians and the chinese adn early moscovite tribes and cossacks... all of that is empirically proven. The mongols cnquerred as far west as eastern europe and taxed even the poles, there is historical record to verify this....


lol so you are saying someone jsut made up the mongolian emprie jsut for shits and giggles? You have no evidence to refute the established hsitory but it jsut doesn't feel right. Like how 2000 british commenmen were able to defeat 14,000 french men at arms at the battle of agincourt, it seems to remarkable to be true but once you dig into the details it all comes together and makes sense. Have a little more faith in the work of anthroplogists it''s not an easy discipline but we ahve amde great strides, it is not the same at all as the medical industry. It is not clearly marred by profit and ill will.

 

[burtlancast]

Didn't Alexander defeat Darius at the Battle of Gaugamela while being outnumbered 3 to 6 times ?

Gengis Khan won all his battles while being similarly outnumbered; he won because he never engaged in hand to hand combat, using instead his superior archers and their mobility. The Mongol poney had superior endurance and could feed even on snowy plains, something horses couldn't.

Superior endurance (Mongol poney) + superior mounted archers (Mongols learned to hunt on horse with their bows as early as 6 years olds) + Fabian strategy of never meeting the enemy head on = INVINCIBLE ARMY (for the time)

Russians never enjoyed these 2 attributes, and thus couldn't be the real perpetrators. And i don't believe either Russians could commit such cruel acts (Khan killed 20% of the world population at that time).

Khan only lost 2 battles in his lifetime; versus the Egyptians, who employed smilar tactics to him, and to the Japanese, who used nighttime suicide guerilla tactics.

Iranians still remember Gengis Khan as their greatest national catastrophe.

Fomenko was a profesional communist disinformation agent, just like many others (soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, Oleg Gordievsky, the "secret KGB files", pastor Richard Wurmbrand, ...)

 

[michael94]

Fomenko was a profesional communist disinformation agent, just like many others (soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, Oleg Gordievsky, the "secret KGB files", pastor Richard Wurmbrand, ...)

I certainly don't agree with Fomenko on everything and his work is very Russian-centric ( not necessarily bad if it's correct ), but the Russians as the Great Horde makes a lot of sense. Fomenko also makes a pretty good case that the "Great Wall" of China was built as a border between Russia and China fairly recently, not 2000 years ago.

Why do you say he was a communist?

Like I said revisionist history is often worse than the original lie. Did you even watch that video? Not one fact to support his claims. The reason that the oldest manuscripts of these ancient texts are only 500 years old is that over time the papyrus or animal skins they were written on wasn't preserved and would fall apart after a certain length of time. That is why the Monks were so busy copying everything onto new scrolls. I am sure that they had edited out a bunch of stuff we are not supposed to know but saying that ancient Greece didn't exist is just silly.

The events of "Ancient Greece" and "Ancient Egypt" are probably based on real events albeit with a lot of details changed. Names, locations, etc. How easy would it be for Monks to completely re-write history when "copying"?... Trivial. I won't claim to know the exact events of the past but so-called ruins of Athens are completely suspect. Same with the Giza Pyramids. There's no proof of their existence prior to around the time the Suez Canal was constructed and Napoleon "re-discovered" them. Carbon dating is not proof as I have linked above - C14 Crash.

What is your point? They can trace the first horses back to the steppe of mongolia. There is evidence of many battle sbetween the mongolians and the chinese adn early moscovite tribes and cossacks... all of that is empirically proven. The mongols cnquerred as far west as eastern europe and taxed even the poles, there is historical record to verify this....
lol so you are saying someone jsut made up the mongolian emprie jsut for shits and giggles? You have no evidence to refute the established hsitory but it jsut doesn't feel right. Like how 2000 british commenmen were able to defeat 14,000 french men at arms at the battle of agincourt, it seems to remarkable to be true but once you dig into the details it all comes together and makes sense. Have a little more faith in the work of anthroplogists it''s not an easy discipline but we ahve amde great strides, it is not the same at all as the medical industry. It is not clearly marred by profit and ill will.

No I'm not saying the Mongol Empire never existed, I'm saying the Mongol Empire was centered around Russia with most events taking place in Europe rather than Mongolia/Northern China. Read Anatoly Fomenko's books, they're free on Amazon if you sign up for kindle unlimited free trial, otherwise $10 or so a month. He makes a very good case that certain parts of European History were "snipped" and attributed to other parts of the world. I can't comment on all of his work as I've only read a few of the books.

One thing for sure is that if any archaeologist or anthropologist is pushing radiocarbon dating as a honest and legitimate method for dating "ruins" or "fossils" then they are full of it. There is a lot of tinkering involved in verifying dates of samples, and before any sample is "dated" the lab requires an estimation of how old it might be. Interesting huh? Occam's Razor you guys!

 

[sladerunner69]

I certainly don't agree with Fomenko on everything and his work is very Russian-centric ( not necessarily bad if it's correct ), but the Russians as the Great Horde makes a lot of sense. Fomenko also makes a pretty good case that the "Great Wall" of China was built as a border between Russia and China fairly recently, not 2000 years ago.

Why do you say he was a communist?


The events of "Ancient Greece" and "Ancient Egypt" are probably based on real events albeit with a lot of details changed. Names, locations, etc. How easy would it be for Monks to completely re-write history when "copying"?... Trivial. I won't claim to know the exact events of the past but so-called ruins of Athens are completely suspect. Same with the Giza Pyramids. There's no proof of their existence prior to around the time the Suez Canal was constructed and Napoleon "re-discovered" them. Carbon dating is not proof as I have linked above - C14 Crash.


No I'm not saying the Mongol Empire never existed, I'm saying the Mongol Empire was centered around Russia with most events taking place in Europe rather than Mongolia/Northern China. Read Anatoly Fomenko's books, they're free on Amazon if you sign up for kindle unlimited free trial, otherwise $10 or so a month. He makes a very good case that certain parts of European History were "snipped" and attributed to other parts of the world. I can't comment on all of his work as I've only read a few of the books.

One thing for sure is that if any archaeologist or anthropologist is pushing radiocarbon dating as a honest and legitimate method for dating "ruins" or "fossils" then they are full of it. There is a lot of tinkering involved in verifying dates of samples, and before any sample is "dated" the lab requires an estimation of how old it might be. Interesting huh? Occam's Razor you guys!

I agree that carbon dating is probably not useful for dating anything in human history, but it could be useful for dating stuff that happened 100 million years ago.

I will check out those books, that sounds interesting enough, thanks for the reccommendaton.

I am nto sure what the motivaiton would be to attribute parts of european history to other parts of the world. Would this be part of the multi-cultural liberal agenda, to enrich world history at the expense of Europes? What is your thoughts on the goals of the history re-writers here?

 

[zztr]

I don't understand the noises about revisionism above. There is abundant archaeological evidence that the Mongols slaughtered mind boggling numbers of people and leveled many cities. They would burn towns and crops to depopulate areas in order to increase pasture land for their horses. They were a brutal piracy operation on a massive scale. They managed to drive a huge piece of both the christian and muslim world into a dark age.

There's no way to spin it as some sort of "not really quite evil" political coalition.

 

[zztr]

Read Anatoly Fomenko's books

This guy looks like a complete nut job. That a lot of conquered peoples were rolled into the Mongol war machine is well known. Georgians figured prominently, for whatever reason. The idea that the thing was secretly run by Russians or Europeans is just bonkers. The events at the time are well documented in letters and such. This isn't ancient history where there's a lot of guesswork involved.

 

[Let Go]

Do you really believe the country above China was responsible for the largest empire ever known? I mean even ignoring the lack of evidence ( besides what is written in his-story books ), does it even make intuitive sense? Doesn't it make more sense that the 'Mongol' Empire was in fact a collection of Slavic and Asiatic tribes centered around Russia? Because it was and still is...

You should listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Podcast. He has a free 4 part series on the Khans, it's fascinating to say the least.

 

[Let Go]

Wrath of the Khans