Roman Empirelet lmao

Roman Empirelet lmao

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1rmo3fKeveo
youtube.com/watch?v=5tVGei24TdQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmashirin
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>what is hundreds of acres of grass

>autistic blobbing
literally lmaoing @ ur """empire"""

Empire of dirt and horses

>Falls apart within 100 years
Great Empire OP, come back when you have one that lasts at least 1/8th of the time that Roman Empire did.

I was going to make a thread about this. Both the Mediterranean sea and Central Asia / Mongolia are big spaces in the middle of the empires without many people but were very important pathways for trade, communication and travel, and with a giant mostly empty space on one side, and unconquered people on the other side.

The Mongols simply did what the Romans did but better.

There's no way you can deny that they thus surpassed the Romans. The Silk Road is more impressive to manage than the Mediterranean.

>hundreds of acres of grass.

And China.
And Persia.
And Northern India
And Central Asia.

So the point is, you're all hypocrites talking about empty space.

Mongols were growing 150 years before Genghis and still competing with China 300 years after.

Great Tartary was bigger and included both.

Get to my level.

Salt water and gras wow

And it all came crashing down in under a century, leaving almost no legacy whatsoever outside of Central Asia, the literal least relevant region in the entire world.

Pretty pathetic 'empire' desu.

>шє шцꙁ ќндиꙁ и sнїт

But it was never an empire proper, unified and led by one person.

Where did i claim otherwise?

> Central Asia, the literal least relevant region in the entire world.

Events in central asia have influenced every empire from Achaemenid to the British.

>when you control 5 port cities, but you paint the whole subcontinent to look bigger

>what is the british raj

Nigga they got fucking nowhere until Genghis

and it lasted about 2 seconds

>be you
>Genghis Khan
>run your horse into a bunch of weak faggots
>claim most of the world as yours
>die without ever actually having to manage any of your new land

Alexander at least had educated people around him to manage his shit.

>Great Tartary
Explain?

It's an obscure theory that says that Eurasia used the to be ruled by some sort of Ruso-Turkic Empire also called Tartary or Russian Horde.
And that human history is only 1000 years old.

Tartary was however the a real name given to Northern Asia for some time, but probably not an actual state just the region thought to be ruled by Turkic people who were all labelled "Tatars".

>Mongol language derivatives aren't practically universal
>No one fucks horses outside of Hungary
>No yurts left except in some prairie north of China

Mongolia only true empirelet
Khan cucks btfo

i wish that were real

ez

Comedy map thread?

Check out mine!

Romans had endless water in the middle

That "grass" you speak of was full of gold and giant statues (see the pisses you off thread)

you got one as well I see

Despite silly stuff like this, I can't bring myself to shit on Mormons.

Roman Empire has always been a Manlet in size.
Alexander did in 13 years what took the Romans hundreds.

What's important about it is how long that Roman Manlet lived

That is still one of the largest empires ever and by far the longest lived, especially if you count ERE/Byzantium. No one else comes close.

Three largest empires via relative surface area controlled, population, and influence would likely be the Achaemenid/Persian Empire (at its peak 45-50% of the human population in the late 5th century under their dominion), the British Empire (largest empire ever), and the Mongolian Empire (largest continuous empire via land/surface area) in the world.

Roman Empire!
Mongol Horde!

Underrated

The Mongols couldn't keep their empire together and modern Mongolia is now an insignificant country landlocked between the powerful China and Russia.

>especially if you count ERE/Byzantium
which I do, because I'm not a Cuckthlic

Mongolia was always landlocked.

The fragmentation of the empire (which is exaggerated by people who don't understand the great noble Mongol warrior spirit) is clearly not the cause of 'insignificance' either as the Mongolian part alone was still a menace to the Ming Dynasty throughout the 16th century.

>no direct successor
>territory and lands divided among Genghis' sons and grandsons
>further fragmentation, political and military in-fighting, civil wars, and division due to rivalries between various branch families and lineages of Genghis' house and his sons
>"exaggerated"
The unified Mongoloian Empire did not long survive after Genghis.

If u did a list by sea area over date ud have something

Two words: Ain Jalut.

>cant even conquer japan

>northern india
what that little wee tip at the tippy top?
lmao now you're pushing it

considering the word "Rome" is of unknown origin and does not fit into any known lexicon, it's safe to at least speculate that the "Romans" were proto-mongols from the same region doing what they've always done and were trying to control the amber road, the silk road of the time. Something that seems to have occured at least once or twice in ancient Egypt at different times, even back to pharaoh Den.

We see the foundation of rome resounding mongolian iconography and having little to do with Etruscan, Latin, Sabine or Umbrian cultures, they adopted an Equestrian supremacy and avoided naval production. while it is safe to also speculate in this scenario that slowly the locals regained control of the boot and ball eventually.Caesar likely originates from Khazar.

it's a bit of a stretch but then again so is suggesting anything "Roman" just grew out of a wolf in the middle of non-roman Italy.

*click* Noice.

>thinking your kingdom isn't an empirelet when it was probably under control of the great Hwan Empire at some point

post mongolian throat songs
youtube.com/watch?v=1rmo3fKeveo

Most of the mongol empire was tributary.

you show up with 100,000 horse archers and make some trouble. tell the locals that some tribute and token show of fealty to Genghis will make them go away.

I posted this in a thread a week ago, fortunately I made a true believer in the khan

This youtube.com/watch?v=5tVGei24TdQ

This. The Roman empire turtled and the Mongols rushed. its two different strategies but the true test is the ability to hold onto the conquered land and in that respect the Romans easily outshine the Mongols.

>only success is a crumbling sub-continent
Lmao look at these and then bugger off Nigel

>Can't even conquer Germany, Persia and North Brittain.

>

>be Alexander
>fuck men instead of women
>wonder why you have no successors

Also who is Yelu Chucai?

>Yelü Chucai was a statesman of Khitan ethnicity with royal family lineage to the Liao Dynasty, who became a vigorous adviser and administrator of the early Mongol Empire in the Confucian tradition. He was the first of Genghis Khan's retainers to formulate policy during the Mongol conquests, and he also introduced many administrative reforms in North China during the reign of Genghis Khan and his successor Ögedei.

Why didn't the romans send 100 000 men all the way to China and demand tribute them?

#

>In 1252-53 Sali Noyan of the Tatar clan was sent to the Indian borderlands at the head of fresh troops and was given authority over the Qara'unas. Sali himself was subordinate to Möngke's brother Hulagu. Due to the internal conflicts of the Delhi Sultanate, the Mamluk Sultan Nasir ud din Mahmud's brother, Jalal al-Din Masud, fled into Mongol territory in 1248. When Möngke was crowned as Khagan, Jalal al-Din Masud attended the ceremony and asked help from Möngke, who ordered Sali to assist him to recover his ancestral realm.[35] Sali made successive attacks on Multan and Lahore. Sham al-Din Muhammad Kart, the client malik of Herat, accompanied the Mongols. Jalal al-Din was installed as client ruler of Lahore, Kujah, and Sodra. In 1254 the Delhi official Kushlu Khan offered his submission to Möngke Khan and accepted a Mongol darughachi. When he failed to take Delhi, Kushlu turned to Hulagu. In the winter of 1257-58 Sali Noyan entered Sind in strength and dismantled the fortifications of Multan; his forces may also have invested the island fortress of Bakhkar on the Indus.[36]

Tarmashirin is famous for his campaign in India in 1327 before he was enthroned. He destroyed every army on his way to Delhi. The Delhi Sultan gave him a large tribute to spare his life. Also, he unsuccessfully invaded the Ilkhanate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmashirin

Poor little Empire

БИД

Do you ever find it a lot harder to understand text when all the names and key words mean nothing to you?

I see we've given up on the argument that Britain only captured a few ports, and indeed conquered the whole of India.
Stay assblasted pierre

Lasted for around 1/10 the time the Romans or any proper civilization lasted before breaking

Again, two words: Ain Jalut. Has a Roman Emperor in the middle of a campaign at the furthest corner of their Empire ever left the army right away to keep civility in Rome? No. Because they weren't a united empire, just a centralized one. They just had the biggest retinue in charge.

Second of all, if you're going to say "Rome fell in 1453" when everyone in the real world says that's 1000 years later, then how can you say Mongols collapsed in the 13th century? You can just as easily say the Mongol Empire was stopped after Bahadur Khan. But people don't do that, literally only writers about Byzantium do this. You can't say the difference is that they called themselves Romans either - what do you think "Mughal" means?

Sure wish it lasted for more than 5 min

Learn to read, one post above

Left or not,even when hulagu left,the mongols had an advantage of numbers.and ain jalut was only the beginning,there would follow many battles as the egyptians were chasing the nomads out of the levant

Okay, but just to clarify, the point was, if they were so disunited he wouldn't have gone all the way back

I don't get the british "empire" hype.
>Canada
the red should really just be around quebec and toronto, the rest was inhabitated by featherniggers

>africa
OHHH WOW you beat primitives with machine guns and repeating rifles such a MIGHTY EMPIRE

>india
Your only notworthy conquest on that entire map

>australia
literally didn't even have to conquer it just claimed it

>other shit
ports and stuff that you just parked a ship outside of and bombed until it gave up

The british empire was hardly glorious, they sort of fell into it. This is proven by the fact they just gave it up like the cucks the brits are once it got a little hard.

Compare that to the romans or mongols who fought gigantic battles with hundreds of sieges against similiarly armed opponents, worthy enemies and they defeated them one by one through superior skill and bravery.

>when everyone in the real world says that's 1000 years later
Stopped reading there, I can safely assume the rest of your opinion is unfounded contrarian nonsense.
The Roman Empire was far more developed and contributed far more to the modern world than the Mongols managed. Sorry if that triggers you, Zhang.
Furthermore, that embarrassing bullshit excuse with that 'biggest retinue' nonsense is one of the most autistic and flat out wrong things I've ever read.

It's incredibly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Looks like you took the 'le eternal Anglo amirite XDDD' memes too seriously.

>literally saving a picture of a Wikipedia article with highlighted lines to use as 'proof'

HAHAHAHAHA

Did you even read my post? Oh wait, you just admitted you didn't. Every highlighted thing could be put on the Mughal page. There's just no 'horde', if you will, of LARPers shoving their beliefs on Wikipedia like with the Byzantines. That was specifically my point.

The Romans conquered countries that were in contact with each other for centuries, while remaining isolated from the east. The Mongols alone turned the world into a single web, placing the foundations for this very conversation, on the web.

rome is overrated, even the united states, which is merely a contiguous homogeneous nation, is twice as big

Key note in my post you quoted there, I said "unified" Mongol Empire but its a matter of fact even those "successor" states that survived the Mongol Empire's fragmentation were also short-lived. Even Kublai's dynasty in China barely lasted a century.

wow that's a big empire
i cant wait to hear all the things it gave to humanity, all the technology, culture and progress it brought
surely we can fill books after books of all the benefits that the mongol emprie brought


oh wait, we can't since it lasted fuck all and it only brought death and destruction

Because Romans want to tax and govern and draw manpower and integrate that land, not just get a yearly sack of gold from them.

Chill out Nigel, if you don't like people posting the truth just go back to your corner and dream about how you used to rule over primitives and god forsaken sand.

>50% of the empire composed of desert wastelands
>literally nothing of value in it besides muh horse archers
>lasted 50-100 years, fell, didn't leave any culture or history behind, except trail of destruction.
>BUT B-UT THEY'RE EQUAL TO ROME.

No, the Mongol Empire wouldn't even get into top 20 empires in world history, let alone be equal to the greatest empire this world has ever seen.

>lasted 50-100 years, fell, didn't leave any culture or history behind, except a trail of destruction.
That's where you're wrong kiddo

>rome
>great
Hue
Most overrated empire in history

the mongols were master traders, they imported land, cultures, and religion, and they exported their genetics.

>imported land

ok you're retarded

I dont even know what you are trying to get at except to be pedantic.

Well they did hold Persia and China for awhile. Those count for something---oh wait they massacred a huge part of Persian and other Iranian populations in Central Asia and Western Asia.

That's Muslim propaganda.

People don't realize this.

The same way people in the west say "Thank you Florentines for starting our golden age" middle easterners (other than Egypt who has no excuse) go "fuck you Mongols for ending our golden age"

Muslim writers spread the mass-murderer myth which was actually based on the image of their own rulers

I don't buy into the claims that "90%" of Iranian population were massacred by the Mongols/Turks but I do trust the claims on how widespread the devastation to Persian and other Iranic urban centers, cities, and populations were affected. The main reason why most of Central Asia is largely Turkic today is due to individuals like Timurlane and Genghis massacring tens of thousands of them during each of their many campaigns in Western and Central Asia.

>"""empire"""
>land size being the deciding factor of the greatness, influence, and power of an empire

No

The only people that think the Byzantines weren't the continuation of the Roman Empire are contrarian retards on the interent. Every historian disagrees with you.
>the rest of your comment
Are you inplying the Romans didn't have a highly developed internal trade network? Or just that their network was less developed than the Mongols? If yes to either, then I know you're irredeemably stupid and not worth talking to.

The main reason for the issue with the Byzantines and their Roman legacy is due to Gibbons.

Again you are ignoring everything I said and pretending I said something different. All you're focusing on is that I said 1453 is a thousand years later, when that wasn't even the point. I said if you view it technically and say Rome lasted so long even though people speak of its fall as if it finished a thousand years before 1453, then you can say the same thing about the Mongols for 600 years.

So I never even said it isn't the successor, you took it literally and it wasn't the point anyway.

And I never said anything about internal trade, l spoke of the opposite. Again you misread or misrepresent. Mongols connected different parts of the whole world, Rome united parts that were already connected. That fact should be taken into account when someone claims they fell apart instantly.

As for trade, don't forget they were not only active in the Silk Road but the entire Indian Ocean / West Pacific Ocean. How were they less developed?

Gaul was not connected to Egypt you fucking Zhang. Persia had closer ties to China than Carthage with Britain, for example.

I wouldn't quite say that. He helped solidify it but Western Europeans had been trying to discredit the Byzzies for a long time.

That part of it is what makes it comparable to the roman empire, but adding hundreds of miles of steppe to it does not make it surpass the roman empire in anything other then sheer geographical size.