China is not the only country conquered by Mongols which eventually assimilated them. The Mongols did the same thing in the Middle East, Northern India and much of Central Asia. The fact that the Mongol conquerors converted to Islam eventually doesn't mean that they never conquered much of the Middle East.
Why is Mongolia in and not Korea
- Thread starter tifa9292
- Start date
- Status
China is not the only country conquered by Mongols which eventually assimilated them. The Mongols did the same thing in the Middle East, Northern India and much of Central Asia. The fact that the Mongol conquerors converted to Islam eventually doesn't mean that they never conquered much of the Middle East.
I guess so.
I never realized India controlled 20% of the globe but by some weird illogical thinking, it appears to be true. It's a pretty neat trick when the conquered become the conquerors!
There is one distinction- outside of China the Mongols just cavorted in and steamrolled everyone. In China they had to enlist the aid of Song against Jin, and used Western Xia as a springboard into the Jin Dynasty- and even then with the Southern Song on decline for other reasons, it took them 70 years to put East Asia under their control. The Middle East and Eastern Europe dropped like a cheap prostitute, and the West of Europe would have fared no better- had there been anything worth pillaging there in the first place. Otherwise that is a good point.
Best not to let those modern-day Mongol wannabe nationalists have any wet dreams over this, because history beyond the Yuan is the standard non-Mongol domination of Mongolia that has been going on since the Xiongnu and Gokturks were around.
Thormodr
No, you forget- India was Germany because Victoria's mother was German. That's basically the logic of these brilliant "Altaric Golean Nationalists"
Best not to let those modern-day Mongol wannabe nationalists have any wet dreams over this, because history beyond the Yuan is the standard non-Mongol domination of Mongolia that has been going on since the Xiongnu and Gokturks were around.
Thormodr
No, you forget- India was Germany because Victoria's mother was German. That's basically the logic of these brilliant "Altaric Golean Nationalists"
That always happens, though. There really hasn't been much, if any, conquering forces that did not enlist part of the native population to help them. The Mongols are actually known for using Chinese and Muslim engineers to cover up their traditional deficiencies in siege warfare.
The Spanish used natives against each other during their conquests of the new world. Their conquest of the Aztecs used a large army comprised mostly of Aztec subject people. They did the same thing with the Philippines, pitting ethnic tribes against each other.
Pitting tribes against each other is one thing- doing a joint offensive on one power with another major power at their flank is another.
In that case it'd be like Russia using African American discontent to wear the US down before some kind of wacko invasion, the latter is like Canada declaring war and invading from the North just after a nuclear salvo from Russia. Except Canada would be 10x stronger, relatively speaking, since Jin and Song were at a decades-long stalemate at the point.
Completely, completely different scenarios- exceeding the standard, of course.
In that case it'd be like Russia using African American discontent to wear the US down before some kind of wacko invasion, the latter is like Canada declaring war and invading from the North just after a nuclear salvo from Russia. Except Canada would be 10x stronger, relatively speaking, since Jin and Song were at a decades-long stalemate at the point.
Completely, completely different scenarios- exceeding the standard, of course.
andrewlt:
To be quite fair, the Spanish only really held the northern island with any strength, and that only in more or less isolated forts for quite a while. As with the Mongols, the Spanish took the existing chieftains, told them they rule as they had ruled in the past, and then nominally said that the Spanish King was King of the Philippines as well, though that was rarely a practical point.
The Spanish-Aztec battles were quite one-sided in favor of the Spanish, since the Aztecs didn't have much in the way of modern weaponry. Using Aztec subject peoples was useful, though. The Filipinos were more challenging. They had cannon.
To be quite fair, the Spanish only really held the northern island with any strength, and that only in more or less isolated forts for quite a while. As with the Mongols, the Spanish took the existing chieftains, told them they rule as they had ruled in the past, and then nominally said that the Spanish King was King of the Philippines as well, though that was rarely a practical point.
The Spanish-Aztec battles were quite one-sided in favor of the Spanish, since the Aztecs didn't have much in the way of modern weaponry. Using Aztec subject peoples was useful, though. The Filipinos were more challenging. They had cannon.
chrissifniotis
GoogleCiv 2.0.0 coming...
Your argument is reasonable, but that reasoning invites an inconsistancy; the Hitties were introduced as a default playable civilization in a Civilization III game, but not in any Civization IV games, and ther are not a playable civlization in Civilization V at this point. I would have also added the Iroquois from the same reason if they were not already in CiV. While I won't argue the notion of which civilization should be put where when, one shouldn't be so quick to immediately count civilizations in any Civ game just because of their presence in previous civ games.
As for the Mongolia/Korea debate, as most people have already pointed out, Mongolia's greatest and most well known achievement is the domination of most of Asia and inpressive conquests in Europe during the Classical/Medieval era, reaching the title of the largest land based empire in history. I've not going to pretend to have read Korean history, suffice it to say I'm not there yet, but given Mongolia's triumph in conquest and domination, Korea needs to, if not already, come up with something spectacular to outdo Mongolia.
Is this about the Philippines or the Aztecs? For the Philippines, they actually conquered the middle island group first (central Visayas) before conquering the northern island (Luzon). The only part they had trouble with was the southern island (Mindanao). It's been a decade since I took Philippine history in high school there so my recollection might be a tiny bit off. The Spanish landed around the Cebu region first.
At any rate, my point was that there are many examples of foreign powers siding with one side in a civil war and later conquering the country. It isn't unique to the Mongols in China. Getting half the nation to side with you as you conquer the other half is still considered conquering the nation.
There is one distinction- outside of China the Mongols just cavorted in and steamrolled everyone. In China they had to enlist the aid of Song against Jin, and used Western Xia as a springboard into the Jin Dynasty- and even then with the Southern Song on decline for other reasons, it took them 70 years to put East Asia under their control. The Middle East and Eastern Europe dropped like a cheap prostitute, and the West of Europe would have fared no better- had there been anything worth pillaging there in the first place. Otherwise that is a good point.
Best not to let those modern-day Mongol wannabe nationalists have any wet dreams over this, because history beyond the Yuan is the standard non-Mongol domination of Mongolia that has been going on since the Xiongnu and Gokturks were around.
Thormodr
No, you forget- India was Germany because Victoria's mother was German. That's basically the logic of these brilliant "Altaric Golean Nationalists"
Now you are switching gears. The fact remains the the Mongols conquered China. To be sure, it did take awhile to do it. China is after all, a huge country with a massive population. Before you were arguing that they didn't conquer China and now you are admitting they did but it took a long time.
Your disparaging of the other Mongol conquests and the offensive remark about the Middle East and Eastern Europe smacks of extreme Chinese nationalism.
I am not a Mongol nationalist nor am I Mongol. I am just a realist that doesn't twist and warp history to suit my own goals.
You are confused then, Jin and Song were not the same nation- Northern China was occupied by the Jin, who got into a fight with the Mongols.
Then the Song invaded Jin concurrently, as they had an axe to grind. A territorial dispute after the fact was the casus belli for the Song-Mongol War after Jin was long subdued. And as a result many Northern Chinese warriors/engineers ended up being the deciding factor in said conflict.
It was well, well after this fact that there was "one China" again. In fact it was probably the Mongols who ensured that "China" would stay united.
Thormodr
No, they never conquered China, because one "China" didn't exist at the time unless you want to say there were two, or three, or four Chinas (if you through in Dali and Xixia). "Mongols conquered China" spawns the anti-Han
-fest fantasy of 500,000 people storming a united country of over 9000 and defeating them in combat. Yeah that didn't happen- Mongols and Song/Jin "conquered China"- which included Dali, which was theretofore never a part of "China", and is probably only "China" today because of Mongol/Chinese conquest.
Not that you'd know what Chinese nationalism is. It smacks of reality- your posts, on the other hand, smacks of "Atlaric Golea Blotherhood From Canarda"
You may have meant to say you warp and twist reality to suit your own history
Then the Song invaded Jin concurrently, as they had an axe to grind. A territorial dispute after the fact was the casus belli for the Song-Mongol War after Jin was long subdued. And as a result many Northern Chinese warriors/engineers ended up being the deciding factor in said conflict.
It was well, well after this fact that there was "one China" again. In fact it was probably the Mongols who ensured that "China" would stay united.
Thormodr
No, they never conquered China, because one "China" didn't exist at the time unless you want to say there were two, or three, or four Chinas (if you through in Dali and Xixia). "Mongols conquered China" spawns the anti-Han
-fest fantasy of 500,000 people storming a united country of over 9000 and defeating them in combat. Yeah that didn't happen- Mongols and Song/Jin "conquered China"- which included Dali, which was theretofore never a part of "China", and is probably only "China" today because of Mongol/Chinese conquest.Not that you'd know what Chinese nationalism is. It smacks of reality- your posts, on the other hand, smacks of "Atlaric Golea Blotherhood From Canarda"
You may have meant to say you warp and twist reality to suit your own history
Let's face it, the biggest reason to include Korea is that nobody in the world is as obsessed with playing PC games as they are. Some dude who made the RO64 of the GSL even missed the qualifiers of GSL 2 because he was too busy playing Civ 5. Lim Yo Hwan's (Slayers_Boxer) first televised Starcraft 2 game in the GSL 2 attracted almost 800,000 unique hits who watched the stream on GOM's website.
I think you are the one who's confused. Your argument is that the Mongols never conquered China because they had help from native Chinese. Now it seems you're arguing the other way.
If they beat the Jin with the help of the Song then turned on the Song afterward with the help of other ethnic Chinese tribes, that certainly counts as conquering China.
MisterBarca
Prince
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 536
Uh, let's not exaggerate too much. Korean nationalism exhibits psychosis enough without fabricating evidence
I am sure you were jesting, but for the benefit of those who are not familiar with Korea: Many prominent Korean historians" emphatically do not consider 환단고기 and its bizarre claims as genuine history. In fact, virtually no one in respectable in Korean academia does, and the historian quoted in the KBS video himself implied that the accounts in cannot be inaccurate. More damning yet, even North Korean "historians"--who are not averse to fantastic mytho-graphies and have manufactured much nonsense about ancient Korean history--concede that the texts is a fraudulent twentieth century concoction.
Of course, it is still embarrassing that KBS would partly legitimize this stuff by airing it. But then the Korean press has never had much interest in the facts (see the recent Mad Cow Disease brouhaha). Further, I think this garbage aired during 노가다's administration, and nothing that came out of that era surprises me any longer.
andrewlt:
In point of fact, Magellan landed in the island chain first, and got his first allies there. However, he was killed in combat and further Spanish influence had to wait until the next set of Spanish representatives could get there.
The middle island groups were always in contention with the Muslims of Mindanao, so there were a lot of forts built in the area. Those forts can still be seen today. Control was tenuous at best, since the Visayans were never very governable to begin with, and there wasn't anything much to gain by forcing stronger allegiances.
"Conquered" might be too strong a word here. Even later when they "conquered" Luzon, there were always requests for reinforcements and more troops. The Filipinos suffered themselves to be governed by Spanish rulers, but only insofar as the local native elites got their way. There was a constant bubbling of revolution through it all, and the power of Manila rarely got much further than the city limits, or wherever the governor happened to be.
I suspect that the notion of the Mongols conquering China is opposed on much the same grounds.
In point of fact, Magellan landed in the island chain first, and got his first allies there. However, he was killed in combat and further Spanish influence had to wait until the next set of Spanish representatives could get there.
The middle island groups were always in contention with the Muslims of Mindanao, so there were a lot of forts built in the area. Those forts can still be seen today. Control was tenuous at best, since the Visayans were never very governable to begin with, and there wasn't anything much to gain by forcing stronger allegiances.
"Conquered" might be too strong a word here. Even later when they "conquered" Luzon, there were always requests for reinforcements and more troops. The Filipinos suffered themselves to be governed by Spanish rulers, but only insofar as the local native elites got their way. There was a constant bubbling of revolution through it all, and the power of Manila rarely got much further than the city limits, or wherever the governor happened to be.
I suspect that the notion of the Mongols conquering China is opposed on much the same grounds.
"Had help from the native Chinese" is one way of saying "were hopeless without the Song intervention". Mongols never "conquered China", it's more an issue of semantics and Western wishful thinking than anything.
Other "ethnic Chinese tribes" is way too vague. You're forgetting that China and Chinese is a fluid, largely Western concept which is applied ahistorically to random eras of "Chinese history", to suit whichever agenda the writer has in mind.
MisterBarca
Prince
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 536
Yeah, many--perhaps most--conquests involved co-opting (at least a portion of) the indigenous elites that turned out to be pivotal. Under his definition, then, no one ever conquered anyone in human history.
Again, how is "one sovereign nation attacking another sovereign nation in tandem with another" "internal treachery"? The Jin held up internally fairly well by contemporary standards. They were attacked from outside two very well-established fronts- Song and Mongols have both been at war with them, intermittently, for the longest time.
Replace "nation" with "polity" if you wish. You are applying a latter definition of China to an earlier concept of one. That's like saying "Alexander conquered India" because he took Punjab for a few years, and then pointing at a map of post-independence India and going "WOOOW".
Headline history, folks.
Replace "nation" with "polity" if you wish. You are applying a latter definition of China to an earlier concept of one. That's like saying "Alexander conquered India" because he took Punjab for a few years, and then pointing at a map of post-independence India and going "WOOOW".
Headline history, folks.
awesome
Meme Lord
lol@"had there been anything worth pillaging there in the first place"
Well, growing up in the Philippines, Filipino historians and Filipinos in general don't have a problem with the word conquered. There were certainly a lot of revolutions, but nothing sustained nor threatening to the Spanish until the late 19th century. It is generally accepted among Filipinos that the country was under Spanish colonial rule from 1565-1898. That was certainly around 40 years after Magellan first arrived.
The Spanish held enough of a grip through the Catholic Church and a huge portion of the native elite eventually had Spanish blood. The difference being that the Mongols adopted Chinese culture while the Spanish converted Filipinos over to Catholicism. The only region they weren't able to pacify was Muslim Mindanao. The areas that converted to Catholicism were more or less pacified, the occasional short-lived rebellion notwithstanding.
- Status
Similar threads
