The Mongol Empire a product of Circumstance?

[Colovion]

Alright, so I'm having this debate with someone about the Mongol Empire.

They proclaim that Genghis Khan's empire wasn't created out of his own skill or genius, but by the opportune deployment of technologies their enemies had not faced before. I guess he thinks composite bows were something the Mongols invented? Grasping at straws, then stating that the combination of composite bows on horseback and the disciplined manner in which the army was run was the reason for the empire.

I was allowing him to just be ignorant until he compared the Mongols to the Spanish when they fought the Aztecs...

I mean, I've read loads on the Mongol Empire from the beginnings to the end, but books can't really be cited when I don't have them in my hands besides saying "i've read books" which sounds kind of phony.

[Innocentius]

Well, everything is a product of circumstance. Problem solved. Genghis happened to live in the right time and place, with the right geopolitical, cultural, military, whatever factors playing in him his hans - just like the Romans were able to create an empire thanks to them being in the right time and place, with the right surrounding factors, doing the right thing.

I was allowing him to just be ignorant until he compared the Mongols to the Spanish when they fought the Aztecs...

Ignorant? This person has obviously reached a higher level of understanding for history and... well, everything, since he realizes that no single person is enough to change the course of history. We're all just tiny pieces in a much larger mechanic.

[The Wizard]

That still doesn't change the fact that Chinggis Khan united a set of disparate tribes into a well-oiled whole, gave it law, and then proceeded to conquer a gigantic swath of Eurasia with it before he died. Acknowledging circumstance is nice, but ignoring the human element (without which history itself doesn't exist) altogether is simply impossible.

[Innocentius]

The big question is Why? Why Chinggis and why the 13th century? Perhaps there were plenty of other Mongol tribal chiefs just as capable, or even more so, than Chinggis, but who never came to power and who never united any tribes. Why not?

Of course you can't ignore the human element (did I ever insinuate you could?), but dealing only with it gets you stuck in the nasty bog that is the Great man theory, which became outdated sometime during the 19th century.

[The Wizard]

... and historical materialism became outdated a little while later. The trick is finding the balance between the two.

[Innocentius]

Who said anything about historical materialism? There are hundreds of ways to interpret history, reducing yourself to just two theories on history - or the balance between two - would be plain ignorant. If anything, I'd analyze the Mongol Empire from the Annales School to get a good overview, but then again, that's just one way to do it.

[AntiochusIII]

Oh, come on. Did you see how Tolstoy tried to justify his loony view of how history is predetermined? A complete, utter mess that makes no sense whatsoever. A blight upon an otherwise brilliant novel.

What Colovion's opponent is apparently saying is that the Mongols were just, well, lucky. Bullcrap. Everybody from the edge of Byzantium to China knew about the composite bow; heck, everybody from the edge of Byzantium to China also knew how to fight hordes of horse archers. It's not like the Mongols were stormtroopers stumbling upon a primitive planet of unarmed wookies, or the Spanish with their guns, cold steel, and horses upon obsidian-armed tribes.

That the Mongols were disciplined and united is only a testament to Genghis' importance I'd think.

[Colovion]

I realize that the circumstances of the day is a large factor of happenings. It's the dismissing of someone who inspired and united warring tribes into a world-conquering machine because he trained his troops and disciplined them into such a force.

I've heard arguments that Alexander was a buffoon because his enemies were largely composed of mercenaries who fled at the slightest sign of defeat and his troops were much more disciplined. Something like "well he used his Cavalry in an Overpowered way, of course he won. That would be like proclaiming that Hannibal won at Cannae simply because the Roman troops were largely green recruits and over-confident. It's a factor, but it's a small part of the reasons for victory when put into context of successive battles and campaigns won and spectacularly inspired decisions both Militarily and Socially. I don't buy into the assumption that people just so happened to become shakers of the world because they lucked out to be born at the right time and got lucky.

Think of any historical figure who rose from obscurity to gain near immortal status as a conquerer and leader of people. To dismiss their victories and entire life accomplishments as products of their times seems like a dismissal of all great accomplishments as impressive because people don't like to believe that greatness is self-made. Any shaper of historical events requires a steadfastness and inspiration which any factor of the times cannot create; they didn't just happen to stumble into a wonderful series of events and happen to have the ambition and luck to pull it off.

Maybe it's that I find it way too depressing to dismiss the accomplishments of those in the past as mere coincidence and convenient happenstance with a dash of making the right choices. As I said, until he compared the Mongol Empire's expansion to the slaughter of the Aztecs by the Spanish, I was just going to allow him to think that Composite Bows and Horse Archers were invented by the Mongols and were, for some reason, the equivalent of an Abrams Tank in Waterloo.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Alright, so I'm having this debate with someone about the Mongol Empire.

They proclaim that Genghis Khan's empire wasn't created out of his own skill or genius, but by the opportune deployment of technologies their enemies had not faced before. I guess he thinks composite bows were something the Mongols invented? Grasping at straws, then stating that the combination of composite bows on horseback and the disciplined manner in which the army was run was the reason for the empire.

I was allowing him to just be ignorant until he compared the Mongols to the Spanish when they fought the Aztecs...

I mean, I've read loads on the Mongol Empire from the beginnings to the end, but books can't really be cited when I don't have them in my hands besides saying "i've read books" which sounds kind of phony.

The mongol empire is one of the large empires that can't be explained away by mere luck. Of course, many other factors than the military skills and organization contributed:
1. the relative calmness and lack of unity of steppe tribes prior to Genghis Khan meant that most neighboring countries hadn't invested in better defenses against an invasion from the steppes. The sudden transition into an organized, united force must certainly have come as a lightning from a clear sky. This extreme transition is probably a bit unique in history for the mongol empire.
2. the Baghdad khaliphate and Khwarazm were probably declining at the time of the mongol attacks, but were still tough opponents with much greater resources available than the mongols had. But similar situations have occured fr many other empires. Let's take Rome for instance: both Macedon, Pontos, the Seleucid Empire, the Ptolemies and Gaul were lands of falling or fallen empires at the time of roman conquest.
3. the first mongol expansion happened so fast that there wasn't enough time to provoke a more united opposition against the first few conquests (a common theme for empires). By the time they reached Bohemia, Poland and HRE there were some signs of increasing cooperation against them between different nations, however, as well as the knight orders. As it turned out, the death of the khan removed the necessity for such a development towards cooperation in Europe from continuing, as the expansions into Europe pretty much stopped at that point. Also in southeast Asia, there were instances of rising cooperation against the mongol expansions, quite some time after the beginning of the expansions. Indonesia and India proved extremely difficult for the mongols to hold, with frequent revolts at crucial times threatneing to spread to China and rolling up their flank while they carried out military actions to the southwest. This is not unique to the mongols, but probably has existed for every empire in history. The rise of greater cooperation takes time - divide et impera strikes back when enough time passes, making most gains achieved through dividing the enemies temporary. But before such cooperation among opponents arises, it is much easier to make large gains, than fighting all the opponents at once from start. This is not unique to the mongol empire, but its always worth remembering when considering the military skills of an empire, compared to the military skills of its opponents: amount of land is not a good way of measuring military skills. In Genghis Khan's case, there are other testimonies to his skills, including his military organization, his sieges in China, his capability of building out the naturally great logistical capabilities of nomads to work also for larger armies, and a great number of his field battle results.

[The Wizard]

The empire of the Khwarezmshah declining? It had only become an empire and come into control of Greater Iran under the same ruler that executed the Mongol envoys, if memory serves. I'd say the Mongols crushed it at the height of its powers.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You may be right

[Watchman]

The key thing is China, and more specifically that it was in one of those splinter-state interregnum periods. That allowed a major nomad power to coalesce in its vicinity without getting scuppered by the usual combination of deft "let you and them fight" divide-and-conquer foreign policy and punitive expeditions any such rising stars otherwise tended to attract; the Chinese, after all, had long experience in specifically forestalling the birth of just such steppe powers. Nomads could only ever make any headway against it when it was busy playing civil wars and otherwise preoccupied (or already crumbling internally, as with the Manchu invasion).

And AFAIK siege engineers picked up in China then played a rather central part in the fall of Khwarimzam, when the Shah didn't quickly enough grasp this bunch of nomadic invaders was rather better equipped to deal with fortresses than most. I understand by the point he caught up with the program he'd already lost rather considerable territorial and military assets.

So, yes, the short-lived (which is normal for nomad empires) Mongol realm came to being chiefly through a sum of circumstances which actually enabled a strong leader to forge himself the requisite power base and snowball from there. This tends to be the case of empires in general, and steppe-nomad ones in particular.

[Orda Khan]

Hadn't you heard? The Mongols came from outer space, they had ray guns, what chance did anyone have against them?

To be honest, neither Chinggis Khan nor the Mongol Empire will be considered great when viewed with bigotted opinions. Why, he came from the east, he was responsible for untold attrocities....so now let us find ways of dismissing his achievements. I would venture that most of the western leaders at the time would have jumped at the chance to be as powerful. I would also venture that 'history' would have a very different view of them, had they been able to achieve.
There are those who study this subject objectively, accepting that times were quite different back then. Even so, there are a great number of these people who play down his role, instead, giving the credit to his commanders, one commander in particular.
Mongols used Chinese seigecraft (and later Moslem)....and the point is?
It seems like a good idea to add such things to your army.
Mongols had composite bows.....yes so the point is?
Hardly something new considering how far back its existence can be traced.

Most of all, let's not forget that all his victories were over crumbling states, at their weakest point in time and all their leaders were oh so inept.

Of course, it didn't half help having all those space ships to transport his troops

......Orda

[Innocentius]

To be honest, neither Chinggis Khan nor the Mongol Empire will be considered great when viewed with bigotted opinions. Why, he came from the east, he was responsible for untold attrocities....so now let us find ways of dismissing his achievements. I would venture that most of the western leaders at the time would have jumped at the chance to be as powerful. I would also venture that 'history' would have a very different view of them, had they been able to achieve.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you actually saying people who try to diminish the efforts of Chinggis Khan are jealous and bigoted? Besides, I don't think Chinggis being "non-western" does much in this debate. If you recognize that the Mongol Empire was a product of circumstances, you pretty much automatically recognize that every empire ever was a product of circumstance (I've already mentioned the Romans).

There are those who study this subject objectively,

Isn't one of the most important things to remember when dealing with history that there can be no true objectivity? Besides, you are clearly biased in your views on Chinggis, so don't try to claim that from an objective perspective, Chinggis Khan really was a superheroninja.

Mongols used Chinese seigecraft (and later Moslem)....and the point is?
It seems like a good idea to add such things to your army.
Mongols had composite bows.....yes so the point is?
Hardly something new considering how far back its existence can be traced.

The point is that Chinggis Khan was a man who knew how to exploit the weaknesses and strenghts of others at his time. He didn't conquer much of Eurasia by his own, and certainly would have fared less well had the circumstances been different (or had he not been as smart as he was).

[seireikhaan]

The point is that Chinggis Khan was a man who knew how to exploit the weaknesses and strenghts of others at his time. He didn't conquer much of Eurasia by his own, and certainly would have fared less well had the circumstances been different (or had he not been as smart as he was).

Hmm, taking advantage of weaknesses... Isn't that one of the major marks of a great general/commander? Exploiting weakness while avoiding strengths?

Now certainly, circumstances DO play a PART in everything. However, to use that as an excuse to discredit/dismiss every single major achievement and accomplishment is foolish, imo.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you actually saying people who try to diminish the efforts of Chinggis Khan are jealous and bigoted? Besides, I don't think Chinggis being "non-western" does much in this debate.

Now really, who are you trying to convince here? If Chinggis was western, he would be practically on par with a war deity in terms of how much coverage he would get in comparison to other, far less accomplished generals. Just look at Alexander. Practically everybody LOVES Alexander, even though few of his military tactics and formations were his own, instead borrowed from his father. Alexander was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, while Chinggis lived in poverty with his mother for years following his father's death, eventually proving his worth to become leader of his father's clan. Chinggis took on many different opponents, while Alexander took on a decayed Persian Empire and rebels in Afghanistan. At the least, Chinggis was on par with Alexander. And yet, if you ask the average western(especially American) high schooler about Chinggis' actual achievements, you'd probably get a blank stare and "I don't know" from most individuals, whereas most of those same people could at least tell you about some of the basics regarding Alexander beating Persia. But what really bites me is that every time an American child is told about Marco Polo, its always about how he visited the "courts of China", even though he actually visited the court of Kublai Khaan(alegedly, but whatever, that's a discussion for later), who was, of course, the Great Khaan of the Mongol Empire. People just don't like to give the Mongol Empire, and especially Chinggis, their proper dues.

[Watchman]

People revering Genghis sort of tend to forget to mention a couple of things. Like the little detail that when the man died in 1227, the Mongols for the most part still mainly ruled what had always been something of "nomad country" - the Inner Asian steppes as far west as the Caspian, northern China (which had always been rather suspectible to nomadic incursions and influences), and a decent chunk of Central Asia. While that's a lot of landmass large swathes of it were nothing more than empty wasteland populated by nomadic herdsmen, desert, or mountains inhabited by poor, warlike and functionally ungovernable highland tribes (the Afghan ones are doing a fine job maintaining that venerable tradition to this very day). The Southern Song would hold the Mongols off several decades longer, and the far-flung empire began fragmenting under the irresistible pressures of sheer distance and diverging interest within a decade or two of the Gret Khan's demise.

[seireikhaan]

@Watchman: I'm perfectly aware of basic Mongol history, thank you very much.

However, what you're not pointing out is that the Mongol population, if we are including inner Mongolia and all else in the modern Mongolian area, was about one million people, in comparison to the vast numbers available to many of his opponents. The whole concept of a "mongol horde" is rather ficticious, in the western sense of the word. He was taking on several people with much larger native manpower than he had, and won so handily he was able to continue campaigns. Plus, a lot of it is not just his actions, but the legacy of said actions(like the eventual unification of China, bringing together the east and the west, etc...

Plus, tell me how anyone could have prevented an eventual collapse of such a gigantic empire given the technology available? As for 'fragmenting', Chinggis actually had divised that himself, because he realized none of his sons could manage the empire by himself. Thus, the four Khanates were formed. Bear in mind that the three smaller Khanates still owed allegiance to the Great Khan. And yet, the Mongol Empire continued to expand under Ogadei and Kublai, as a whole. None would have been achievable without the groundwork layed by Chinggis and, of course, his Orlocks.

[Innocentius]

Hmm, taking advantage of weaknesses... Isn't that one of the major marks of a great general/commander? Exploiting weakness while avoiding strengths?

Yes, and I don't think anyone has spoken against that in this thread.

Now certainly, circumstances DO play a PART in everything. However, to use that as an excuse to discredit/dismiss every single major achievement and accomplishment is foolish, imo.

And to do the opposite is equally foolish. However, what matters most is to put all these "major achievments" in a greater perspective, and to realise what had happened before, when it happened, how and why. And then you can get on to think about what effects this "major achievement" really had on the world. Was it that major, or was it just part of something bigger?

Again, use the Annales School, to get a basic overview on things.

Now really, who are you trying to convince here? If Chinggis was western, he would be practically on par with a war deity in terms of how much coverage he would get in comparison to other, far less accomplished generals. Just look at Alexander. Practically everybody LOVES Alexander, even though few of his military tactics and formations were his own, instead borrowed from his father. Alexander was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, while Chinggis lived in poverty with his mother for years following his father's death, eventually proving his worth to become leader of his father's clan. Chinggis took on many different opponents, while Alexander took on a decayed Persian Empire and rebels in Afghanistan. At the least, Chinggis was on par with Alexander. And yet, if you ask the average western(especially American) high schooler about Chinggis' actual achievements, you'd probably get a blank stare and "I don't know" from most individuals, whereas most of those same people could at least tell you about some of the basics regarding Alexander beating Persia. But what really bites me is that every time an American child is told about Marco Polo, its always about how he visited the "courts of China", even though he actually visited the court of Kublai Khaan(alegedly, but whatever, that's a discussion for later), who was, of course, the Great Khaan of the Mongol Empire. People just don't like to give the Mongol Empire, and especially Chinggis, their proper dues.

On this one, I think you might be entirely correct. I think the reason I thought of it the way I did was that I really don't care much for great generals, and thus rarely discuss and compare them. I've never udnerstood what people find so interesting in Alexander really. Perhaps I know too little about him, but IMO, he was alive some 300+ years before history got really interesting.

The whole concept of a "mongol horde" is rather ficticious, in the western sense of the word.

I'm not aware of the origins of the term "Mongol horde", but if actually dates from the medieval period, it certainly fits. Two tumen, which from what I can tell wasn't too big a force to the Mongols, was far more than any western king could muster in the mid 13th century (well, technically most kingdoms could, but never needed such vast armies).

[Orda Khan]

I'm not aware of the origins of the term "Mongol horde", but if actually dates from the medieval period, it certainly fits. Two tumen, which from what I can tell wasn't too big a force to the Mongols, was far more than any western king could muster in the mid 13th century (well, technically most kingdoms could, but never needed such vast armies).

The remnants of two Tumen did a remarkable job of destroying an army considerably larger at Kalka.
Any bias toward the Mongol Empire that you think I have is not so much bias as accepting their achievements based on the facts and without trying to put forward excuses, however scant, in order to diminish them.
I stand by what I said regarding bigotry because I've actually seen it written down that Chinggis, regardless of his obvious talent as a commander, cannot be considered great because he was responsible for mass slaughter.

Using 'circumstance' as a means of arguing a point is quite fruitless and, I have often found, is just a way of arguing for the sake of it. After all, if you breathed out and never breathed in again you would soon be dead....but circumstance suggests that you are still breathing in

.......Orda

[Innocentius]

The remnants of two Tumen did a remarkable job of destroying an army considerably larger at Kalka.

I already knew that. You don't have to take every chance to point out the greatness of the Mongols.

Any bias toward the Mongol Empire that you think I have is not so much bias as accepting their achievements based on the facts and without trying to put forward excuses, however scant, in order to diminish them.
I stand by what I said regarding bigotry because I've actually seen it written down that Chinggis, regardless of his obvious talent as a commander, cannot be considered great because he was responsible for mass slaughter.

That's just a nicer way of saying: "I have no bias. I know the truth and accept it. The trugh is Chinggis Khan was awesome, and your attempts to disprove the truth are futile." That makes you biased and stubborn.

And I can't recall that anyone but you has brought up the mass slaughters conducted by the Mongols on the orders of Chinggis other than you, so I don't see the point? Are we supposed to be convinced that there were no mass slaughters or is this some way for you to humorize the "other side's" arguments?

Using 'circumstance' as a means of arguing a point is quite fruitless and, I have often found, is just a way of arguing for the sake of it. After all, if you breathed out and never breathed in again you would soon be dead....but circumstance suggests that you are still breathing in

With that statement, I can only pray you'll never become a professor in history and/or write a book about anything even closely related to history; but it's up to each and everyone to take their own view on history - no matter how out-dated, biased and stubborn it might be.

[Viking]

There is certainly some truth in what Innocentius says. A new Hitler is not able to get powers in todays Germany; even less use them.

Ignorant? This person has obviously reached a higher level of understanding for history and... well, everything, since he realizes that no single person is enough to change the course of history. We're all just tiny pieces in a much larger mechanic.

Which is a paradox since the larger mechanic consists of individuals. Some people are "born to command", while the average person follow the norms and the masses. Those who follow the masses are nothing but oil in the machinery since they do not take their own decisions.

[Orda Khan]

I already knew that. You don't have to take every chance to point out the greatness of the Mongols.

Your previous comment led me to doubt it.
Every chance?

That's just a nicer way of saying: "I have no bias. I know the truth and accept it. The trugh is Chinggis Khan was awesome, and your attempts to disprove the truth are futile." That makes you biased and stubborn.

The facts speak for themselves.

And I can't recall that anyone but you has brought up the mass slaughters conducted by the Mongols on the orders of Chinggis other than you, so I don't see the point? Are we supposed to be convinced that there were no mass slaughters or is this some way for you to humorize the "other side's" arguments?

If you don't understand my point I can't help you.

I stand by what I said regarding bigotry because I've actually seen it written down that Chinggis, regardless of his obvious talent as a commander, cannot be considered great because he was responsible for mass slaughter.

.......Orda

[seireikhaan]

And to do the opposite is equally foolish. However, what matters most is to put all these "major achievments" in a greater perspective, and to realise what had happened before, when it happened, how and why. And then you can get on to think about what effects this "major achievement" really had on the world. Was it that major, or was it just part of something bigger?

Again, use the Annales School, to get a basic overview on things.

I'm sorry, not laughing at you, just the irony. This here is EXACTLY why I think Chinggis and the Mongol Empire were important. It was Chinggis who realized the value of the then-decrepit silk road, and reopened trade between the west and east. Now, remind me again why Columbus wanted to sail the Atlantic? And going with that general direction, Chinggis and his succcessors ultimately succeeded in what resulted in the unification of China from their previous splinter states. Not to mention the eventual conversion of the Ilkhaans and Timurlane to Islam led to the expansion of Islam through the various 'Stans and India, whether you view that as good, bad, or neither regardless. Not to mention creation of the Mughal empire in India, founded on descendants of the Mongol Empire. Now of course, there were many instances where the Mongol Empire committed atrocious acts which I don't agree with, but their impact on the world is, imo, undeniable.

I'm not aware of the origins of the term "Mongol horde", but if actually dates from the medieval period, it certainly fits. Two tumen, which from what I can tell wasn't too big a force to the Mongols, was far more than any western king could muster in the mid 13th century (well, technically most kingdoms could, but never needed such vast armies).

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that in the medieval age, horde meant something along the lines of "army". However, I am speaking of the image that the average western person gets when they think of "horde", which was, imo, epitomized in 300, when the Persians are referred to as a "barbarian horde", indicating what the average western person's image is of a horde. The Mongol army certainly wasn't a "horde" by those standards, and I think its a misperception to apply the word to mongol armies in today's times.

[Hound of Ulster]

the Mongols came along at just the right time. China was divided, the Islamic world was distracted by the last throes of the Crusades, and none of the European princes could even begin to match the capabilities of the Mongol war machine. Chingiis was a great commander, but even the greats need a little bit of luck to win.

The execution of the Mongol envoys by Kwarazham was probably the stupidist diplomatic move in world history. The Mongols were nice to people who surrendered willingly. Those who resisted were annahilated.

[IrishArmenian]

'Circumstance' set up Temujin for grave impact on the world, he was intelligent enough to take every oppurtunity he could. His unification of the Mongolian tribes really serves as a good example-- treating allies and friends as he did family? Unheard of, especially in such a tribe-oriented culture but he made it work.
The guy was a genius and a bastard.

[Innocentius]

The guy was a genius and a bastard...

...who had the right circumstances to become one of the great names in history.

Imagine how many people just like Chinggis there must have been throughout history, who never had the right circumstances to do what they did best. The same goes for all the potential authors, painters and musicians that were/are born in the wrong place at the wrong time to fully use their talent.

[Sarmatian]

...who had the right circumstances to become one of the great names in history.

Imagine how many people just like Chinggis there must have been throughout history, who never had the right circumstances to do what they did best. The same goes for all the potential authors, painters and musicians that were/are born in the wrong place at the wrong time to fully use their talent.

And imagine how many people who had the right cirumstances just didn't have the ability, talent or knowledge to take full advantage of them...

It still takes a very capable man to do what he did, circumstances or no...

[Innocentius]

And imagine how many people who had the right cirumstances just didn't have the ability, talent or knowledge to take full advantage of them...

It still takes a very capable man to do what he did, circumstances or no...

Which pretty much everyone in this thread has already agreed on

[Papewaio]

The same goes for all the potential authors, painters and musicians that were/are born in the wrong place at the wrong time to fully use their talent.

Like those in a city that didn't capitulate right away to a Mongol Horde.

=][=

Full marks to Genghis Khan for unifying the tribes even at the expense of family members who threatened to splinter the unity.

Full marks to creating a fighting force that could first take out China (and China much like Japan would unite against an external threat) and then debating to keep it as a rice paddy or turn it into a steppe. The first PETA groups were Mongols they would debate the worth of humans vs horses and almost wiped out most of China's agrarian society to replace them with a horse range.

Full marks for then going on to conquer the vast majority of the most advanced and largest populated continent during that time period.

Full marks for setting up the rule of law and protecting the people once conquered... something more modern states could have learned from. Mind you the IEDs of the 13th century were just a cow with bloat and a fire cracker up its rectum.

Now like sex, size of the empire and technique of the empire aren't everything. An empire really has to go the time, multi generational. As far as empire conception was concerned it was a bit premature compared with the high point it promised early on. It fractured and made a few mini empires. It certainly changed the face of the world during that time period. And its fracturing certainly helped others rise. It's components did continue to expand and certainly the economy had a huge bonus with the silk road being under their sway.

[Innocentius]

Full marks for then going on to conquer the vast majority of the most advanced and largest populated continent during that time period.

A somewhat unfair description. While China was indeed the most advanced and most densely populated geographical area of the world at the time, the same could hardly be said about most of the Mongol empire, which consisted of steppes, sparsely inhabitated by nomad horse people.

And since saying anything negative or deragatory about Chinggis or Mongols in this thread seems to attract the attention of some fanboys: No, I did not try to diminish the efforts of the Mongols, I only pointed out something that has already been said in this thread.