Why is Mongolia in and not Korea
- Thread starter tifa9292
- Start date
- Status
awesome
Meme Lord
pretty sure there was a little more than that, but genghis khan probably liked berries.
You're the one arguing semantics here. I'm applying the same standard to China that I'm applying to every single other country in the entire planet. You're reaching way too far to make excuses. What happened in China happened in other countries as well that were conquered by invaders. Your central government falls, you're conquered. It doesn't matter if there are still pockets of resistance in the country.
You do know that disease wiped out the Aztecs, right? And yet I don't think anybody is saying the Spanish never conquered the Aztecs because it was smallpox and typhus that wiped out 80% of the population.
Unconquered Sun
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,462
Seriously?
Mongols suffered a number of setbacks in their western campaigns (Bulgaria, etc) before being decisively defeated for the first time in the world by Egypt.
Moreover, cities like Venice, Constantinople, and Cordoba likely dwarfed any Eastern Asian city of that time period. The greatest city the Mongols ever captured was Baghdad and they used mostly non-Mongolian troops: Armenians, Georgians, etc.
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.
I was shocked when I saw it on television myself. It is pretty bizarre but it seems at least quietly accepted in South Korea unfortunately.
Mind you, I have an extremely low opinion of the Korean media. Learning that all foreigners have aids or that 80% of foreign English teachers are illegally working in South Korea and are sexual deviants was a big shock to me. This kind of garbage was aired on Korean television and featured prominently in South Korean newspapers.
EDIT: Oh and agreed on the Mad Cow disease fiasco in South Korea. You know nationalism is extreme when they start applying it animals. Korean cows cannot have mad cow disease! I remember a South Korean friend of mine telling me in Busan that the brown squirrels were of Korean origin and the black ones were Japanese and explained to me that the Japanese squirrels were killing all the Korean squirrels. *Shakes head*
I also remember a story of the black bear in Japan that mauled someone and the Japanese press saying that it must have been a Russian bear that swam over to Japan because Japanese bears would never do that.
The British Empire was the largest empire by land area in history. The Mongols had the largest continuous land empire, but it was a few million sq km (or sq miles, i forget right now) smaller.
Agreed that the Mongols should be in ahead of Koreans.
Moderator Action: For pages, there has now been nothing in here about Civilization 5, so i guess this thread is better placed in the "World History" subforum.
Thread moved.
Have a nice history discussion
.
Thread moved.
Have a nice history discussion
. The population part is untrue. The largest Chinese cities were easily comparable to those. It depends on where the Chinese capital was at the time.
andrew
There is also the question of "by whom" and what you think China is. The scale of it is more like dynastic change- not "ethnic conquest" Altaric Golea supporters like to think.
Did the definition of Aztec expand to include billions of people outside of the reach of the Spanish empire?
Or did Alexander really conquer India?
Unconquered Son
Bringing to wit what I recall of medieval demography, the only thing these cities dwarfed East Asians in was gonorrhea cases. Some Jiangnan City like Hangzhou was the largest at the time despite Mongol mass murders some time before.
Pasta Man
Technically, but they included large parts of Australia, the Sahara, the icy parts of Canada and even a slice of Antarctica in their ego-maps. I guess the Beglians and Moon people of Southern Antarctica provided great bounty to the British coffers.
There is also the question of "by whom" and what you think China is. The scale of it is more like dynastic change- not "ethnic conquest" Altaric Golea supporters like to think.
Did the definition of Aztec expand to include billions of people outside of the reach of the Spanish empire?
Or did Alexander really conquer India?
Unconquered Son
Bringing to wit what I recall of medieval demography, the only thing these cities dwarfed East Asians in was gonorrhea cases. Some Jiangnan City like Hangzhou was the largest at the time despite Mongol mass murders some time before.
Pasta Man
Technically, but they included large parts of Australia, the Sahara, the icy parts of Canada and even a slice of Antarctica in their ego-maps. I guess the Beglians and Moon people of Southern Antarctica provided great bounty to the British coffers.
andrew
There is also the question of "by whom" and what you think China is. The scale of it is more like dynastic change- not "ethnic conquest" Altaric Golea supporters like to think.
Did the definition of Aztec expand to include billions of people outside of the reach of the Spanish empire?
Considering how xenophobic China has been historically, it's easy to tell when foreigners have conquered China. Not to mention that Chinese culture has been distinct and mostly unified for a long time. The Mongols are obviously foreign.
No idea what you're trying to say on the second point. What point are you trying to make?
andrew
There is also the question of "by whom" and what you think China is. The scale of it is more like dynastic change- not "ethnic conquest" Altaric Golea supporters like to think.
Did the definition of Aztec expand to include billions of people outside of the reach of the Spanish empire?
Or did Alexander really conquer India?
Unconquered Son
Bringing to wit what I recall of medieval demography, the only thing these cities dwarfed East Asians in was gonorrhea cases. Some Jiangnan City like Hangzhou was the largest at the time despite Mongol mass murders some time before.
Pasta Man
Technically, but they included large parts of Australia, the Sahara, the icy parts of Canada and even a slice of Antarctica in their ego-maps. I guess the Beglians and Moon people of Southern Antarctica provided great bounty to the British coffers.
I suppose the vast empty Steppes and large chunks of Siberia provided a bounty to the Mongols....
andrewlt
Another popular and oversimplified epithet used against China with no knowledge. Calling China xenophobic is laughable at best- they have always had decent to good relationships with almost all of their neighbors for the vast majority of their time.
So which specific policy or even dynasty would you label as "xenophobic", I'm curious. Keep in mind that China is pretty much the only true "tolerant civilization" if you think in such black and white terms of race and religion.
Another oversimplification, even today the "Han" are not culturally unified. Cantonese, for example, have their own genetic signature, language, cuisine, culture, history, etc.
Pasta Man
The parts that are "counted" generally were productive and settled. The empty parts of Siberia are not tallied in the Mongol score, because the British revisionists think they're that special. Can't not have double standards, can we!
Another popular and oversimplified epithet used against China with no knowledge. Calling China xenophobic is laughable at best- they have always had decent to good relationships with almost all of their neighbors for the vast majority of their time.
So which specific policy or even dynasty would you label as "xenophobic", I'm curious. Keep in mind that China is pretty much the only true "tolerant civilization" if you think in such black and white terms of race and religion.
Another oversimplification, even today the "Han" are not culturally unified. Cantonese, for example, have their own genetic signature, language, cuisine, culture, history, etc.
Pasta Man
The parts that are "counted" generally were productive and settled. The empty parts of Siberia are not tallied in the Mongol score, because the British revisionists think they're that special. Can't not have double standards, can we!
Yes they are, don't give me that toss... If you really want to get annoying about it, Britain also had virtual dominion over the world's oceans and we all know how productive the sea is.
andrew
There is also the question of "by whom" and what you think China is. The scale of it is more like dynastic change- not "ethnic conquest" Altaric Golea supporters like to think.
Did the definition of Aztec expand to include billions of people outside of the reach of the Spanish empire?
Or did Alexander really conquer India?
Unconquered Son
Bringing what I recall of Medieval demography, the only thing these cities dwarfed East Asians in was in gonorrhea cases. Some Jiangnan City like Hangzhou was the largest at the time despite Mongol mass murders some time before.
Pasta Man
Technically, but they included large parts of Australia, the Sahara, the icy parts of Canada and even a slice of Antarctica in their ego-maps. I guess the Beglians and Moon people of Southern Antarctica provided great bounty to the British coffers.
Your argument about Alexander seems a little bizarre. He invaded India but never followed through as his troops wouldn't go any further. Totally different from what the Mongols accomplished in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
Anyway, I suppose Alexander didn't conquer the Persian empire either?
Pasta Man
No, they're not. Not even 15% of the "Russian Far East" is tallied under the Mongol's "score". And if you count British control of sea routes, you may as well acknowledge that Mongol trade extended into Africa and Western Europe
Thormodr
Whoosh! That wasn't the point- India, at that time, was also split into several rival states. Just as China was- and even more if you count "modern" or even Qing China.
No, they're not. Not even 15% of the "Russian Far East" is tallied under the Mongol's "score". And if you count British control of sea routes, you may as well acknowledge that Mongol trade extended into Africa and Western Europe
Thormodr
Whoosh! That wasn't the point- India, at that time, was also split into several rival states. Just as China was- and even more if you count "modern" or even Qing China.
andrew
There is also the question of "by whom" and what you think China is. The scale of it is more like dynastic change- not "ethnic conquest" Altaric Golea supporters like to think.
Did the definition of Aztec expand to include billions of people outside of the reach of the Spanish empire?
Or did Alexander really conquer India?
Unconquered Son
Bringing to wit what I recall of medieval demography, the only thing these cities dwarfed East Asians in was gonorrhea cases. Some Jiangnan City like Hangzhou was the largest at the time despite Mongol mass murders some time before.
Pasta Man
Technically, but they included large parts of Australia, the Sahara, the icy parts of Canada and even a slice of Antarctica in their ego-maps. I guess the Beglians and Moon people of Southern Antarctica provided great bounty to the British coffers.
Signs that you know that someone has lost an argument. Why all the insults? Do you really think that demeaning other cultures will make your own culture look better?
I like to be to the point- when you get huffy Europeans boasting about how wonderful their cities are, talking vacuously about how they "dwarf" China's cities in population (no, none of the three did at the time- Hangzhou was the largest by far), well it's amusing the first 100,000,000,000,000,000 times. After that, you get bored of political correctness and protecting their egos, and that's when we can have a discussion beyond regurgitating epithets and sound bites.
India was divided amongst various Indian peoples and *shock* *gasp* Alexander didn't conquer any of them. He campaigned against some of them and then withdrew.
China was full of different kinds of Chinese people and *shock* *gasp* a foreign people called the Mongols conquered them.
Two totally different situations which bizarrely you are trying to equate as the same thing.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
No, he conquered Punjab, which if you recall is part of India. So I guess he "conquered India"
It'd be like saying the Mongols "conquered Europe" when in reality it was only Eastern Europe. The Mongols never "conquered China", both because 1) they relied on others to do it and 2) the definition of China is vague. Sorry you can't have your Altaric Golea Empire headline history.
It'd be like saying the Mongols "conquered Europe" when in reality it was only Eastern Europe. The Mongols never "conquered China", both because 1) they relied on others to do it and 2) the definition of China is vague. Sorry you can't have your Altaric Golea Empire headline history.
I was of course refering to British military domination of the seas. I can't remember mentioning trade but if you want to, the Britain traded with the world, therefore owned it. If you can find one can you show me a link to a map including Antarctica and one including the entirety of the Mongol empire?
- Status
Similar threads
