Global Vote

[Ophiolite]

Don't you ever ask 'what did Homo Erectus ever do for us?'

Good question, but will it stand up to close scrutiny?

[Pangloss]

Ophiolite, I don't mean to sound so aggressive. I understand where you're coming from there and I don't blame you for having that opinion. All I'm saying is that polarization is a two-way street.

[Ophiolite]

No, you didn't sound agressive. I certainly didn't take it that way, but unlike most of the points you make,even the ones where I disagree with you, you sounded wrong. I was just seeking to clarify why I thought so.

 

As an aside, if you re-read my first post on this aspect I emphasised that deciding that I must be against Bush was a reaction. You will not be aware that I am not in favour of reaction, since that essentialy places ones decision making in the hands of others. So I first react, then discard my reaction, then decide on the logical/ethical/most amusing/ course of action (or inaction) appropriate.

As I have said on this or another thread before, I would be more comfortable about us going into Iraq if we were also prepared to go in - under UN auspices - to clean out other despots around the globe. That, however, would require a quite different UN charter and it wont happen any time soon. Iraq is the right war, in one of the right places, at the right time, for the wrong reasons.

[budullewraagh]

Succesful. Ruling a 1/3 of the world.

the mongol empire was larger...

[Sayonara]

Geographically? Or because they had China in there?

[Aardvark]

the mongol empire was larger...

 

India, Canada, Australia and a variety of other places including a huge chunk of Africa add up to more than the Mongols ruled.

[budullewraagh]

Geographically? Or because they had China in there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by budullewraagh

the mongol empire was larger...

 

 

India, Canada, Australia and a variety of other places including a huge chunk of Africa add up to more than the Mongols ruled.

 

india, canada, australia and other places including africa. compare that to all of asia, save a few small corners and the islands. under genghis, the mongols defeated the poles and were pushing the bavarians back. in fact, it took the death of ogotei, his successor, to end the mongol rush through europe. before ogotei's death, the mongols had reached central europe. add half of europe to asia and you get a large empire

[Ophiolite]

I'd have to say that the Mongol Empire wasn't so much an Empire as it was a drinking party that got out of hand!

[budullewraagh]

are you serious? they united asia man. in the late 1300s timur leng tried to reclaim the empire but he messed it up by just conquering and never achieving social and political stability. the earlier mongols were successful in doing so.

[Ophiolite]

I confess I was being slightly mischevious. But here is my perception (and it is a perception, I stand quite ready to change it).

 

The British Empire, rather like the Roman Empire occupied territories and applied a flexible, but structured system of governance to those territories. This was done as far as possible with minimum disruption to the territory, its people and infrastructure, since the primary goal was for trade.

 

The Mongol Empire was baed on conquest and vassalage. 'We've thumped you and if you don't keep sending us tribute we'll come back and thump you again."

 

I'm simplifying and generalising, but is there not a strong element of truth in these characterisations?

[Aardvark]

india, canada, australia and other places including africa. compare that to all of asia, save a few small corners and the islands. under genghis, the mongols defeated the poles and were pushing the bavarians back. in fact, it took the death of ogotei, his successor, to end the mongol rush through europe. before ogotei's death, the mongols had reached central europe. add half of europe to asia and you get a large empire

 

The Mongols did not rule all of Asia. Invading armies did penetrate Poland, no, they did not reach Bavaria. And they left the same year they arrived.

 

 

Here is a link showing a map of their Empire. It was impressive but never got even near to rulling all of Asia.

 

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Fwt82-pnd5oJ:www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2532/page4.html+map+mongol+empire&hl=en

[budullewraagh]

This was done as far as possible with minimum disruption to the territory, its people and infrastructure, since the primary goal was for trade.

 

The Mongol Empire was baed on conquest and vassalage. 'We've thumped you and if you don't keep sending us tribute we'll come back and thump you again."

it's funny you say that. england conquered territories and eliminated all opposition (including governments) with haste and an iron fist. the primary goal was not for trade as much as it was for mercantalism. the english would conquer and completely exploit the resources of recently conquered land as well as the labor of inhabitants (think triangular trade).

 

the mongols were similar in that they conquered adjacent territories and also instilled great fear into enemies by committing fearsome actions. the mongols were not mercantalistic, however. rather, they managed a large empire instead of colonizing and exploiting the resources of their foes.

 

 

The Mongols did not rule all of Asia. Invading armies did penetrate Poland, no, they did not reach Bavaria. And they left the same year they arrived.

 

 

Here is a link showing a map of their Empire. It was impressive but never got even near to rulling all of Asia.

that was in 1206.

[Sayonara]

This may have gone way off topic, but it's jolly interesting.

[Ophiolite]

it's funny you say that. england conquered territories and eliminated all opposition (including governments) with haste and an iron fist. the primary goal was not for trade as much as it was for mercantalism.

Not so. Very much not so. Take India as a classic example.

The Empire began there with the machinations of the East India Company - very much a trading operation. Like any trade organisation before the introduction of government ombudsmen and the FDA they used some very sharp practices, that you could certainly characterise as exploitation.

As they extended their sphere of influence they did so by 'buying' the local rulers with money or military support. They governed (and exploited) the territory through them.

 

Finally, on a trivial note, 'england conquered territories'! A disproportionate number of the conquerors were Scots. But as I say to my friends from Texas and Alabama, it's an easy mistake for a yankee to make.

[budullewraagh]

are you kidding me man? the british invaded india, took their opium and used it to get the entire chinese government addicted and stoned as a means to eliminate resistance in china

[Ophiolite]

I am perplexed by what it is you are trying to say or what you think I am trying to say. I quote you again.

 

" england conquered territories and eliminated all opposition (including governments) with haste and an iron fist"

 

I have explained that the conquering was certainly not done with haste (and some historians woudl argue was almost accidental), taking a couple of centuries in the case of India to become total; that it was done through and with the connivance of the existing power structure; and was done primarily as a trading exercise. i.e. 'How can we make as much money out of this as possible.'

 

Am I defending these actions and suggesting that they were not accompanied by violence, persecution and exploitation. No. Just noting that, as far as I can see, this differs from Mongol motives and methods.

[Aardvark]

are you kidding me man? the british invaded india, took their opium and used it to get the entire chinese government addicted and stoned as a means to eliminate resistance in china

 

The British established trading posts in India and gradually expanded in terms of influence, by economic strength, politics, local alliances and some wars fought in alliance with local rulers (against other Europeans trying to muscle in).

 

There was never an 'invasion' of India.

 

The export of Opium to China was to make money, not to 'eliminate resistance' Remember the opium trade was quite legal at that time.

 

And the map of the Mongol empire at it's largest in about 1296 still shows it as being smaller than the British empire.