The great debate

The Mongol empire dismantled aristocratic systems of privilege and replaced them with meritocracies (at least in general), created one of the biggest free trade zones in history by reviving the Silk Road and thereby spurring massive cultural, material, and scientific exchange with major effects, and established universal religious toleration across their lands. There's a reason scholars refer to such a thing as the "Pax Mongolica."

That said of course they were pretty fucking brutal and there's still a case to be made that their overall impact was negative, but I hate memesters like the first poster whose only opinion about the Mongols is "hurrr evil savage barbarians," literally just consuming and spouting propaganda from buttmad people who got invaded desu

>setting up the roots of a Euro-Asian trade network
>destroying civilization
I coulda sworn both empires were secular

Pikes in the time of the Romans were much longer then before during Alexander's era. Making pike formations more unwieldy due to the length of the pike, and less able to maneuver. You're forgetting that Alexander is also known for his cavalry that were often pivotal to his victories.

While you are right that Genghis would've won, it would mostly be due to over 1,000 years of technological advancements.

>The Mongol empire dismantled aristocratic systems
Like who? Fucking China who invented meritocracy in the east the first place?
Those Muslim warlords who simply surrendered and kept their titles?
How about those pet Rus princes who still princed around, only to send money/tribute to the Khans?

But the modern era is just proof that "meritocracy" is really just putting mean creatures into power and aristocracy is superior. Turco-Mongols = USSR, figuratively and literally.

>euro-Asian trade networks existed long before khan
>what is sige of Baghdad?

>"meritocracy" is really just putting mean creatures into power and aristocracy is superior.
Yeah, because you westerncunts added democracy in the fucking mix.

>I coulda sworn both empires were secular
Alexander thought he was divine.

>it would mostly be due to over 1,000 years of technological advancements.
Excepting siege engineering Mongol battle tactics and equipment were roughly the same shit the turk/mongols were using during Alexander's time.

>secular

As if this meme existed before the 18th century western world?

>1,000 years of technological advancements.
Yeah we went from the Scythian horse archer to the Mongolian horse archer.

Dude the technologies were not that different. Armor improvements, sure. But the main factor in Genghis Khan winning this battle would be his consistent ability to decide where and when battles were fought via the mobility of horse archers. Some historians now believe that the estimates of Mongol numbers were vastly overblown because they moved so fast that the Arabs and Europeans thought that it was multiple armies, rather than the same one riding for a few days into a new region.

Genghis Khan thought the sky told him he would conquer the whole word.

Yea dude he only had like 1000 years of prep time

kek when you put it that way

Sure, let's ignore the power of a recurve bow and the utility of the stirrup. Let's ignore the advantages that steel had over iron and bronze.

>recurve bow is a technological advancement

>ignoring the other points

Khan's "empire" was split up into four separate kingdoms immediately upon his death, while the Seleucid Empire reigned united long after Alexander's death.
Except Khan took over a bunch of empty steppe lands that were never valuable or difficult to conquer. Meanwhile, Alexander effectively took on a massive empire, conquering the known world in a mere eleven years. He was clearly the better leader and conqueror.

>Khwarezm
>not valuable
>not difficult to conquer

meanwhile your gayboi went up against a fragmenting empire that couldn't even manage its own satraps effectively by the end, with plots, intrigue, infighting, and revolts in Egypt taking up most of Darius III's time before the invasion proper really started to fuck things over.

mongol artillery was actually the best in the world, they took the engineers from the territories they conquered, most notably the chinese, and used their expertise to build trebuchets, catapults, even rockets and gunpowder.

They had a much more advanced artillery force than anyone from ancient times and quite frankly, more advanced than any of their contemporaries due to the massive pool of engineers they could pull from.

desu maybe he was and maybe the sky did

your a dorable

>
people always repeat this but it is a little overstated and giving a little to much credit

I second this

>1000 years technological advancements meme
And we're talking about fucking Mongols of all things.

You could pit any pre-gunpowder army (or pre medieval-plate armoured knights) against anything up to about 500BC and the technological differences would not be massive. The real difference comes in the type of soldiers and organization that come from those time-periods. An equally sized Roman army could easily defeat an early medieval army (or possibly vice-versa). And don't exaggerate retarded things like better bow technology or metallurgy. In the grand scheme of things, what type of metal the tip of your spear is made out of doesn't matter at all. Given it's of reasonable quality of course. Whatever advantages Khan has, they mainly aren't technological. However when we do these theoretical "who would win" scenarios I usually assume we're just talking about a pitched battle with equal overall army strength or some shit, in which case I'd give it to Alexander.

>Khan's "empire" was split up into four separate kingdoms immediately upon his death, while the Seleucid Empire reigned united long after Alexander's death.

Have you forgotten about Ogedei, Guyuk and Möngke? People that came after him and had a big ammount of control over the empire.

What have the Gayreeks conquered after Alexander? Nothing, unlike the mongols after Genghis.

Also the greeks never did cross faction campaigns like the Invasion of the Abbasids where troops from all over the empire participated.

Genghis Khan's legacy lasted longer then the one from Alexander.

Shit it's the same european misconceptions like saying that China didn't exist before the Opium wars.

>Except Khan took over a bunch of empty steppe lands that were never valuable or difficult to conquer. Meanwhile, Alexander effectively took on a massive empire, conquering the known world in a mere eleven years. He was clearly the better leader and conqueror.

And didn't conquer China or India= better leader.

The cultural output from Greece after Alexander's conquest (what is indo-greek culture, let alone the near east and North Africa) is far more impactful than Khan's imo.

>indo-greek culture

Long dead, native indian culture was far stronger - Buddhism, Hinduism etc.

>near east, North Africa

Like what is there alive from Alexander's time? Go and ask a modern egyptian if they know anything about indo-greek culture.

The mongols were nomads they didn't built much, but Alexander and his descendants didn't cause a great change in native cultures in asia either.

But think about how Greek art, Platonism, Hellenism effected all those places. Plus the Greek dynasties.

>roots
You mean the Romans/Han

>classical meme vs ultra-mega meme
In a meme-tier rating, Genghis wins by a huge margin. In terms of actual influence on the world at large, Alexander by far. In terms of influencing the world they lived in, probably Genghis but it's pretty close

Some of the people interested in the history of martial arts actually claim that Shaolin kung fu laid the roots to most modern martial arts today, but they were invented by a buddhist monk from India, where traditional martial arts may have sprung from Greek pankration. It's pretty interesting.

Also, the Gurkha's iconic kukri might be a descendent of the Kopis. Lots of speculation, but kinda interesting to think about.

Didn't the mongols kill a tenth of the humans on the planet or something like that?

Alexander made Greek a lingua franca.
Jesus spoke Greek, the New Testament was written in Greek over 300 years after Alexander's death.
Christianity would not exist without him.

deluded greek

Alexander was literally known Great and Genghis was only known as Khan, therefore mongol would lose.

He was known as the khan of khans. Just like you know, Shahanshahs or how the hell you write it.

>he was only knows as khan

This must be some kind of american education.

Mongols would crush Roman empire at their height.

>Vastly superior seige weapons
>vastly superior cavalry (mobility)
>vastly superior logistics (self sustaining/long distances)
>vastly superior weapon (guns/archers)
>vastly superior information network/spy system

Greeks have no chance at all. There's like 1500 year difference between the two.

thats a picture of ogedei

>killing 60% of the Jin monarchy's population is good for trade

Genghis Khan's achievements are more impressive, Alexander's are more important historically.

>t. not chang