That I do, for a very simple reason. At least Persepolis didn't have the accumulated scientific knowledge of an entire civilization in its golden age along with knowledge from the rest of the world as well. That's cool, and their ships were nice, but I'm not actually sure how its relevant? The army itself was pretty new, the better generals and commanders were the ones with great power: this way even if someone were born in a poor family he could've hope of becoming someone important. In Poland, east Germany, and Hungary, no knights could stop the mongols. Bad at combat in clunky armor and outdated equipment? Like very rare examples in times of antiquity and the middle ages, since China had such a large population to boast although only about 10% of the ancient Chinese population were true urban dwellers, while 90% were more rural or definitely in the rural category , then China was able to muster gigantic armies.
He was fighting freaking China. This statement can be applied to the later Chinese dynasties, such as the Ming and Qing, who did not continuously fight, since China remained unified since the founding of those empires. The fact these are the best tactics you can claim for Genghis tells the whole story. They were rather notarious for their warlike nature, and famous as skilled archers. They used it for fire lances, cannons, and land mines which would effectively demolish any European army of the time. Secondly the structure of the Song Dynasties military was so poor they would be lucky if they were actually able to employ multiple weapon systems at once, much less in any kind of synergistic manor.
Also, conquering and governing are two different things. Pour silver down your throat while gold flows out mine! In fact, it nearly covered the combined area of all the empires combined. The Europeans only ever surpassed everyone else once they acquired the use of gunpowder and creation of rifles. China contains mountains, deserts, and dense forest. Overall, the Khan of Khans, Genghis wins hands down. Needless to say, he came, he saw, and destroyed those who took his wife, and got her back of course.
Now it seem you are the one putting words into my mouth. You are attributing future successes of the European empires to their Medieval selves. I feel its because western military power was so vastly superior, and its easier to make an argument for other elements of society but I could be wrong. Western advancement did no pass China at this point. This is 100% historian talk, so my claims are earthly in nature Originally posted by Caesar: Islam conquered the Mongols, who eventually converted in droves and saw their influence greatly weakened. Genghis defeated enemies which were qualitatively inferior to the Mongol hordes. The Song were in constant battles.
I would like to learn more about both of these characters, and I am really intrigued by the fact that Alexander was educated by Aristotle. Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Persians, Arabs, and Indians all fell under the Mongol empire. He is a mastermind in battle and campaign. I think I've already addressed this. However versus outdated Europeans, they would effectively conquer. That is he severely outmatched and outgunned? Once again your referring to China as a singular entity. Then what, he destroyed the persians.
They employed 'Kharash' during combat which is simply using human prisoners to protect your siege weapons and archers by forcing them to march in front of enemy troops, acting as meat shields. The Song existed when the Europeans were in the middle ages, far beyond the technological advancement of the rest of the world. Money and materials moved from Syria to Korea with ease once the Mongols had conquered everything in between. That is an extraordinary claim by any measure. That Genghis had a larger army? All you took was Alexandria! By the age of thirty, he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world, stretching from the Ionian Sea to the Himalayas. You can be banned for a first offense.
Medieval Europe feared invasion from the barbarians in the north mainly the Vikings and Germans , Ottomans from the south, and Mongolians from the east. Don't forget Marco Polo lived during the high middle ages during the time of Renaissance. But so did Philip of Macedon almost a thousand years earlier. Reading your last sentence it seems you claim that because Rome fell to barbarians. Khan, since the area he conquered amounted to the largest empire the Earth has ever seen, as a comparison: Mongol Empire you can see Greece on the far left: Greek: As you may notice, the area the Khan's conquered was roughly four-five times bigger.
The Europeans greatly favored melee combat, which prove ineffective versus guns and cannons. Soviet sent the into Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. I am not arguing for the overall technological superiority of Europe. Not only that, but he died an old man, in power, not murdered by anyone, which is a plus. Larger armies mean you can take more losses and cover more area, which is a very important factor in battle.