How do you see Genghis Khan?

[ParkCungHee]

Let's talk about Ungern von Sternberg. Quite a character, eh? Could he have done better than he did?

Kaiserreich says yes!

 

[Dachs]

Kaiserreich also has the Allgemeine Ostasiatische Gesellschaft and a four-sided American civil war.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Kaiserreich also has the Allgemeine Ostasiatische Gesellschaft and a four-sided American civil war.

Those were fun.
Also, I find it funny that you find the Allgemein Ostasiatische Gesellschaft to be unrealistic, but not Mittelafrika.

 

[Dachs]

Oh, I think it's pretty stupid too, along with the entire concept of the Entente and the gratuitous easily-snapped-up Russian successor states. I wasn't going to make an exhaustive list, though.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't see why not. He's kind of similar to Reza Khan in many respects (except for not being a Mongolian where Reza Khan was, notably, Iranian). I always felt it a bit mystifying that the Bolsheviks decided that it was worth their time to intervene in Mongolia but, apparently, not Iran.

Could be something to do with putting themselves in a position to support the Chinese communist movement (and Chinese revolutionary socialism more generally), which was getting pretty active at that point. Proved to be a complete dead end, of course, but that's pretty much Bolshevik foreign policy 1917-1921 in a nutshell.

 

[schlaufuchs]

This thread is for mongolia and not england. Also in the medieval era the only empire worth know, in europe, is the byzantine!! At that time england was a bunch of barbaric kingdoms until 1066 or so when they were united!!

I think my brain just melted and is now in the process of oozing out of my ear.

 

[LightSpectra]

the vikings brought civilization to an uncivilized europe

Well that's a thesis that's rather new to me. Raping and pillaging (not that this is the only thing the vikings did, but I wouldn't expect your average scrub poster to know better) is more civilized than the advancements made by the Carolingians in philosophy, agriculture, literature and art.

I think my brain just melted and is now in the process of oozing out of my ear.

You and me both.

 

[General Pilates]

Well that's a thesis that's rather new to me. Raping and pillaging (not that this is the only thing the vikings did, but I wouldn't expect your average scrub poster to know better) is more civilized than the advancements made by the Carolingians in philosophy, agriculture, literature and art.

I hope you didn't actually take that seriously.

 

[LightSpectra]

I hope you didn't actually take that seriously.

Oh, my mistake. For some reason I thought the other guy made that post.

Let's talk about Ungern von Sternberg. Quite a character, eh? Could he have done better than he did?

I'd just like to say, when von Ungern-Sternberg isn't the craziest guy in your civil war, you're doing something awfully wrong.

 

[christos200]

Stay on tapic this is a thread about the Mongols and not the Eastern Roman Empire



O hai Charlemange.



Edward the Confessor would like to have a word with you.

1) Charlemange was the only barbarian that i can say that was great emperor. He was even better than some roman emperors, but his empire was destroyed after his death while the byzantine empire lasted for more than 1.000 years.

2) There were only some anglo- saxon barbarian small kingdoms until 1066 when the normans took over and unite england. Without them england now would have been a third world country divided in small kingdoms.

Also the byzantines where so advanced that if the english, at that era, saw them they would think that they are aliens.

I mean you cant compare the glory of byzantium with the small barbaric kingdoms of england.

 

[LightSpectra]

1) Charlemange was the only barbarian that i can say that was great emperor. He was even better than some roman emperors, but his empire was destroyed after his death while the byzantine empire lasted for more than 1.000 years.

Do you have even the faintest clue of what you're talking about? Charlemagne wasn't any more "barbarian" than the Romans were, and his empire wasn't destroyed after his death.

2) There were only some anglo- saxon barbarian small kingdoms until 1066 when the normans took over and unite england. Without them england now would have been a third world country divided in small kingdoms.

Wroooooong. The Anglo-Saxons under the House of Godwin were united, and had been for over a century at that point. Furthermore, please explain to me the "civilization" that the Normans brought to England. The way you're speaking, it's like the Normans had railroads and gunpowder.

Also the byzantines where so advanced that if the english, at that era, saw them they would think that they are aliens.

I don't think you know what the word "advanced" means.

I mean you cant compare the glory of byzantium with the small barbaric kingdoms of england.

I feel like I'm reading really bad Greek nationalist propaganda. I probably am.

 

[Traitorfish]

2) There were only some anglo- saxon barbarian small kingdoms until 1066 when the normans took over and unite england. Without them england now would have been a third world country divided in small kingdoms.

England had been united for over a century, was hardly barbaric, and the fact that it is now in union with Scotland, Wales and parts of Ireland suggests that the future borders were not definitively set in the 11th century.

Also the byzantines where so advanced that if the english, at that era, saw them they would think that they are aliens.

It's funny that no historical records survive to that effect, then, given that numerous Englishmen served in the Varangian Guard. (A majority of the guard were English in the late 11th century, in fact, having seen a large influx of Godwin loyalists after 1066.)

 

[LightSpectra]

Some historians emphasize that the Normans "Europeanized" England, but all I see for the first century of Norman rule was economically inhibitive taxes, fairly poor kings (arguably Henry I's reforms outweigh his other errors, to be fair), and reckless, expensive adventures in continental France. From what is it based that England would've been diplomatically isolated if they weren't conquered? That seems like rubbish to me. The Carolingians, Ireland and England were exchanging bishops for a good period of time.

 

[christos200]

I mean Charlemagne was a good guy but thats all. He was a great emperor, good general but after his death his empire was divided. He is like a smalller version of alexander the great. Also he was the first to steal the roman title.

Also after 1066 england started to become a superpower. Until then there ware a bunch of barbarians. That doesnt mean that they werent good people. They had their own culture that i like but you cant compare the glory of the greek orthodox empire named << byzantium>> which lasted 1.000 years and a bunch of anglo-saxon kingdoms.

I hope i dont sound very nationalist.

 

[LightSpectra]

I mean Charlemagne was a good guy but thats all. He was a great emperor, good general but after his death his empire was divided. He is like a smalller version of alexander the great. Also he was the first to steal the roman title.

His kingdom wasn't divided upon his death. He was succeeded by his son Louis. He was also much more than a conqueror; you're completely ignoring his administrative skill and reforms.

Also after 1066 england started to become a superpower. Until then there ware a bunch of barbarians.

Oh lawl. Define "barbarian." Define "superpower." If either of those definitions contain pejorative comparisons to the Roman Empire, you can stop right there and go to the corner of shame.

I hope i dont sound very nationalist.

Hint: when you're incapable of referring to your country's historical predecessor without using the word "glory" twice a paragraph, you're probably a nationalist.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The Byzantines, in my opinion, were almost certainly the most advanced of the European states at the time, and arguably noticeably more advanced than many of the other European states, but still, that doesn't mean that the English were barbaric. Different parts of Europe also weren't really "barbaric" anyways. For instance, the best example I can thikn of are the Scandinavians - you think of them as Viking hordes, which is true, but they also controlled trade networks reaching all the way to the Middle East, and they washed themselves. Yes, they washed themselves. Stuff like that. Medieval Europe wasn't just a bunch of dung-eating peasants and bloodthirsty nobles killing everybody.

He was also much more than a conqueror; you're completely ignoring his administrative skill and reforms.

Also wasn't he a patron of the arts and learning or something?

 

[christos200]

I know Louis. He tried to keep the empire united but the empire was divided even when he was trying to keep it united. Lets face the fact. A german empire based on fedualism can be kept united for many years. Otto I was the creator of the holy roman empire but almost 200 years later the emperor was emperor only in name. They just couldnt keep their empire united. Even today germany is a federation.

Also Normans where the one that created modern england.

 

[LightSpectra]

I know Louis. He tried to keep the empire united but the empire was divided even when he was trying to keep it united.

It was divided actually because he intentionally let it be divided. This is something universally acknowledged by historians and chroniclers. The Ordinatio imperii was a plan of succession to re-separate the parts of the Frankish Kingdom as inherited by the Carolingians.

Lets face the fact. A german empire based on fedualism can be kept united for many years. Otto I was the creator of the holy roman empire but almost 200 years later the emperor was emperor only in name. They just couldnt keep their empire united. Even today germany is a federation.

I... wha? You've gone off the deep end here, and that is not something I say lightly. Nothing in this paragraph is accurate.

Also Normans where the one that created modern england.

Excuse me for the tautology, but England didn't enter the modern age until the modern age. I've already addressed the point that the Normans "europeanized" England, and I'm waiting for a response.

 

[Linkman226]

Technically Christos is right. Considering the Byzantines spoke Greek, and barbaroi means those who don't speak Greek... a lot of Europe was barbaroi.

 

[Traitorfish]

From what is it based that England would've been diplomatically isolated if they weren't conquered? That seems like rubbish to me. The Carolingians, Ireland and England were exchanging bishops for a good period of time.

True, just look at the Edward the Exile, who found himself in the courts of Kiev, Hungary and Swabia before returning to England, none of which are exactly next door to the British Isles.