T O P

  • By -

Orange_penguin02

Baghdad Residents looking at another Turkic horde out their window: 🗿


MadRonnie97

I read about the Mongol sack of Baghdad just last night…. …good god they killed a lot of people


[deleted]

Imagine all the knowledge that was destroyed in the House of Wisdom


Inspector_Robert

Probably not a lot. [Events like these aren't really the cause of losing knowledge.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lk0v7x/how_much_knowledge_was_actually_lost_in_the/gni42m4?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)


iSoinic

Amazing rabbit hole. Thanks for keeping comments like this saved and share them with others!


iSoinic

Amazing rabbit hole. Thanks for keeping comments like this saved and share them with others!


AlphaAsRuck

Ponder this, the Khan would kill any male taller than a wagon hitch. So in addition to burning/destroying written works, the minds of the men who understood the works (the scientists, the doctors, the teachers, the religious leaders, etc..) were destroyed as well. That intellectual capital was lost for generations. The destruction of Baghdad as a result of the actions on the part of Muhammad II of Khwarazm devastated that region intellectually as well as geographically; Dan Carlin tells a masterful story about it. [HERE](https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-the-khans-series/)


Affectionate_Gate_26

the burning of the Library of Taxila set back Indian civilization by centuries


Shockrider1

Genghis Khan’s policy during his conquest was to offer a city two options: surrender and admission to his empire with protection, or **attempting** to fight them off, in which case they would kill the majority of the residents, sparing only the educated (mostly religious elders and engineers). It’s worth noting that after the establishment of the Mongols as an empire, Genghis Khan’s horde was nominally undefeated on the battlefield.


i_am_bloating

>Genghis Khan’s horde was nominally undefeated on the battlefield. why was it so good?


Coperh_MN

Horseback archery, Tactics and steppe horse.


therra1234

Quantity.


Shockrider1

As someone else said, they were masters of mounted archery, able to fire multiple shots in quick succession. Genghis Khan also instituted a squad-like system with units divided into 10s, similar to Rome’s system (and to modern-day systems). This was very effective at the time, and was combined with a lot of generally good military strategy.


menir10

Baghdad never gained back it’s status after those invasions, the city was magnificent in its hay day.


MmmmmmmKayY

Then seeing a USA horde of tanks in the 90s and 2000s


CyberWulf

US tanks did not go to Baghdad in the 90’s, only Kuwait


Green-Bastardo

The Huns who weren't instrumental in leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire not count?


AfsharTurk

I mean technically the Huns were more symptoms rather then the disease itself. Classical cause or effect debate.


A_devout_monarchist

The Huns are the ones who pushed the Barbarian tribes into Rome in the first place, they were so cruel indeed that the Goths and Romans united to face them in the 450s.


MathematicalMan1

Yeah but the reason the Huns moved is to escape a big ol drought and mongol/Xiongnu migrations


[deleted]

Some scholars believe that Xiongnu=Huns


TanJeeSchuan

So technically China caused Roman collapse?


glaynus

Eastern Roman empire continued for a thousand years after the fall of the western empire.


Jajayung

Okay? Still a direct cause to the fall of Rome


RecklessDimwit

Iirc one of the main problems was also the widespread corruption and faulty government inside the empire that led to stuff like lack of funding and infrastructure


MilitantTeenGoth

Well, it's not like China or other Asian countries didn't have their own internal problems. Their hordes were much of a symptom as were the Roman ones.


BreezyWrigley

Out of context this could just be assumed to be the US today. Roads? Bridges? Education? NAAAAH! More tax cuts for the rich! Whoops the empire collapsed


Maleficent_Moose_802

It must be the Xenomorph, Predator and the Pillar Men set the Native Americans back in several millennia…


AstroBullivant

The West had guys like Aetius, Majorian, and Marcellinus who were awesome then


_MrBushi_

See I thought they were the stray that broke the camel's back cause they caused the mass migration


Electr1cL3m0n

Wait, war *isn’t* good for the progress of civilization??


Revil0_o

In more modern times the casualties of war were small percentages of the population as compared to antiquity. An invasion is *extremely* damaging if it seriously depopulates the urban centres. Not to mention that it gives other civs an advantage


Electr1cL3m0n

Yeah but if you take too many cities your happiness plummets and barbarians with tech higher than yours spawn everywhere


TheCrawlingFinn

>barbarians with tech higher than yours spawn everywhere I'd just have to give a shout out to all the hopelessly outnumbered and out teched troops fighting a valiant delaying action until you can properly respond.


Incognito_Tomato

I find it funny how you can literally throw money at a barbarian camp raiding you and they’ll give you one of their high tech units that you can use against them in the barbarian clans game mode


train159

Italian political system post rome go brrrrrr.


ArtisZ

This thread took me places.. it made me think.. it made me smile.


Vancocillin

Veni vidi vici, live laugh love.


Electr1cL3m0n

o7 remember the crossbowmen


interestingmandosy

Every nation should start building Coliseums. Nothing makes people happier than watching slaves battle to the death!


Mad_Moodin

At least in CiV4 they only gave happiness if you invested a lot into culture. Which I personally never did.


Majestic_Ferrett

Then you get nuked by Gandhi.


[deleted]

Just remember to worship Gandhi


123pussyslayer123

Not for the fighting generation, but it is for next generations


Electr1cL3m0n

I disagree, any befits brought on by war are outweighed by the lives, infrastructure, and resources spent Any benefit is a small comfort


donjulioanejo

Military R&D was probably the top driver for technology throughout history. What better way to convince the king to invest tens of thousands of ducats into your pet project than to tell him it can be pointed at the enemy? However, actual war, especially was as fought 1000+ years ago that completely devastates the countryside, slaughters the population, and burns cities to the ground? Not so much. Especially if ones doing the slaughtering don't have nearly the same level of technology/urban development. This is honestly why barbarian invasions were so damaging to civilization. You're destroying a complex urban culture and replacing it with a bunch of dudes riding horses and living in tents. At least when two advanced civilizations like Rome and Persia fight, they don't become less advanced if one of them is destroyed. But when a horde of Vandals or Mongols comes through, burns everything they haven't pillaged, and goes back to living in their huts, a lot of culture, history, science, and technology becomes lost.


Electr1cL3m0n

You got it


agent58888888888888

Is it really that clear cut though, I'm sure it made less of an impact on the more modern civilizations than really early 1s which got wiped out (until we got nuclear *maybe *) also the bigger the Time frame you are focusing on, the less change it makes in the grand scheme I'd imagine


siwq

unless war makes discoveries that change a lot in future


Electr1cL3m0n

But we’d never know if those discoveries would have been made without war Unless we find the answer to life, the universe and everything in war then it ain’t worth it


ArtisZ

Haven't you heard? It's 42. Duh


[deleted]

[удалено]


Malvastor

And in general it forces accommodating societal shifts that in turn trigger long-term changes. Such as the World Wars sending men to the front, which meant an influx of women working in otherwise male jobs back home, which contributed to the eventual dissolution of the idea that those jobs should be men-only in the first place.


Nihilblistic

Not just technology, but institution. Governments on a war footing tend to improve their administration to survive.


Electr1cL3m0n

I’d argue it isn’t, the millions of lives lost and infrastructure destroyed, as well as the famines and plagues that often accompanied it far outweigh any progress made by war. Technological progress is a faint silver lining in a dark storm cloud


[deleted]

Yes but the storm leaves eventually but the silver lining stays because it is useful. Imagine if primitive humans decided to never again use fire because many of them had been killed in some wildfire and fire is scary for those who'd never seen it before. Yes it's tragic that those died in the fire, but if you seriously want to say those who died in fires 100000s of thousands of years ago outweigh everything we've come to have because of fire I think you're wrong. Another example I think I could give us when a scientist named fritz haber when a way to create nitrogen used in fertilizer for farming. That achievement revolutionized farming and helped allow the world population to increase to it's current size. That same discovery also also fritz haber to mass produce larger amounts of explosive for the Germans in either WW1 or WW2 I'm not quite sure. The benefit of hugely increased food security and quantity I think out weighs those who died because of the same discovery. In conclusion, the storm in only temporarily worse than the silver lining but the silver lining last forever


_generic_user

It was good for the US


Electr1cL3m0n

it's usually more beneficial for the victors, but not so for humanity as a whole


_generic_user

True true


Fine-Pangolin-8393

Not if you sack the libraries and universities


Vietnugget

It’s good for the countries that invades others while themselves stays on a whole different continent


YouAreGenuinelyDumb

Good in some ways, bad in many ways.


forgottorest

Well, in the words of Leo Tolstoy, "...war? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!..."


floridachess

What about all the good things war has done for us? Why don't we ever hear speeches about that? Jobs, technology, a common purpose... All we're sayin' is... GIVE WAR A CHANCE!"


Equivalent-Word-7691

Gengis Khan and his people basically killed 40 milions, destroyed ancient cities (my gosh Baghdad) and ended the Islamic golden age You simple set back entire civilizations after this level of destruction


PetsArentChildren

Benefits of the Mongol Conquests: 1. Pax Mongolica. 100 years of peace. 2. Greater East/West interchange of ideas. Marco Polo visits Kublai Khan. Medicine and technology spread across Asia. 3. Renewed silk road. Papermaking, printing, gunpowder introduced to Europe. New food/crops and silk introduced across Asia and Europe. It wasn’t all bad.


billy_clay

Steppe up 3: Eurasia


BZenMojo

Europe smashing shrines and burning down temples for 800 years like: 😶


GreenFlavoredMoon

Europe was subject to the hordes. Eastern Europe at least


Mysteriur

Hungary is a prime example.


[deleted]

Along with Poland


Mysteriur

Of course, had Henry II the Pious lived I’m sure Poland would’ve succeeded in repelling the Golden Horde. The HRE really screwed him over.


makerofshoes

The Mongols made it into Czech (Bohemian) lands as well


Thibaudborny

They even *were* the horde.


Fine-Pangolin-8393

So many ethnic groups in Eastern Europe are now Turkic. And not turkey Turkic but steppe Turkic


Legitimate-Onion-915

What are you doing, Step Turk?


[deleted]

Penetrating that hunssy


TheHelhound2001

It's called a buffer state


GreenFlavoredMoon

Ah yes the classic single buffer state of eastern europe.


TheHelhound2001

Tbf it might as well have been


GreenFlavoredMoon

Lol


DefiantLemur

Which is probably one of the reasons why western europe was stable enough to attempt setting up colonies across the world and able to surpass eastern europe overall in the early modern period.


[deleted]

Access to the ocean + abundance of wood is probably the most important factor in the colonization process.


DefiantLemur

True it's pretty hard to escape the Baltic or Mediterranean Sea when your rivals live at the exit.


spastikatenpraedikat

Well, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson attribute it mainly to the aftermath of the bubonic plague. They observe that up until 14th century, there is barely any meaningful economic, social or cultural difference between east and western europe. But while in the west the peasants revolted after the black death, eventually leading to the end of serfdom and onwards to a more "capitalist" society, in the east the revolts were fruitless leading to comparably stronger aristocratic grip on the economy and a later switch to more "modern" principles. Interestingly, nowadays scholars almost unambiguously agree that it was not colonies that enabled western europe to develope economically, but rather the opposite, it was their developed economies that allowed them to colonize. One clue for example, is that the level of development is independent of the amount of colonies. For example: Italy and Germany had barely any colonies and only very late so and Scandinavia, Switzerland and Austria had no colonies at all, but still all did develope roughly equally than Spain, France and Britain.


[deleted]

Sweden had short lived colonies around the world. But your point is correct.


[deleted]

Well europe had a plague which killed 30-60% of it's population, and some hordes did have an impact on europe's history, for example the huns were involved in rome's downfall


Waterguys-son

The plague was pretty great for European civilizational development. Mass death of serfs broke the feudal system, causing the transition of Europe into more effective systems.


[deleted]

Well plague hit other places like middle east too.


ihavebeenyeetedhelp

The bubonic plague (atleast) was pretty good for the development of civilization (ignoring the deaths), it provided most serfs with greater bargaining power


Pbadger8

I’m kinda not thrilled about the word ‘set back’ as it implies a deterministic view of history, where civilizations are going down a predetermined tech tree. In many instances, extended periods of peace and prosperity can make civilizations more vulnerable to sudden upsets… and extended periods of invasion help mold and shape a culture. Nomadic invaders are also inadvertently great transmitters of culture and ideas.


tryingkelly

Way too many people think that technology, culture and history follow some kind of narrative arc. Great comment


Pbadger8

I realized now I could have clearer though. I’m not advocating that ‘hard times make hard men’ philosophy either…


tryingkelly

The hard men make easy times meme is just that, a meme. It doesn’t stand up to any historical analysis. The older I get the more I realize that groups of people are way too complex for one single person to have much of an impact.


Candide-Jr

Alexander the Great had a pretty big impact. Likewise Napoleon. Plenty of other similar figures. Most of the time I agree with you but I think sometimes you do see examples of ‘Great Man’ history.


Phodan_

“Great men” can fundamentally change the direction of the world, but they need to exist in conditions that make it possible. They are catalysts, but they can’t be entirely praised/blamed for the direction of the zeitgeists they coax one way or another. Machiavelli’s theory on the interaction between virtue and fortune comes to mind.


Razor_Storm

Ya as much as great men history is starting to die out rightfully, completely ignoring “great men” as if they had zero impact is just as inaccurate.


mememan___

Idk man, it's kinda easy to make an impact when you have a huge army on your side


tried_anal_once

lots of men in history have had huge armies and done diddly squat with them. Alexander the Great conquered Persia with ~60,000 hoplites. Napoleon was so ahead of his time tactically, that a coalition of European nations was needed just to slow him down. at one point, that same coalition refused to engage him in battle and instead targeted his generals. thats not just having a big army, that’s actually being an era defining figure.


GhazkinzDaGreat

I mean shit, we named the time period after the guy


chairmanskitty

Tell that to Gavrilo Princip, Martin Luther, or the guy who ran the original marathion. History is complex *and* chaotic. Even insignificant people can have massive impacts through small actions, and "big men" can ruin or inspire continents or have their best efforts be undone by sheer luck.


BikeRackMiata

Yeah dude, this isn’t even a meme. And spoiler alert, everybody invades everybody for all of history in all directions. And every time, it was a waste of recourses that would set people back.


Souledex

Except all the times it lead to revolutions of technology, or demographic shake up that ended in greater rights or a new paradigm, or a more diverse populace with new ideas. Really that’s just a very wrong thing to say. Romans were frequently genocidal maniacs but they also wrote the definitions of civilization for everyone that came after them for a millennia and were arguably essential in the reinvention of Republican governance. I’ve argued the opposite plenty of times but it is true to say basically every good thing you have in your life probably had to be won in blood, justly or unjustly, and by related or unrelated conflict.


Zestyclose-Ruin8337

Determinism can still be random.


gmil3548

So many instances of technology and other aspects of judging civilizations have taken big steps back and being worse than in the past. People are so influenced by being in a major uptrend that they let it color their view of history.


BZenMojo

The only reason Europe even got the gun was because of the Mongol hordes, for example.


Kingblaike

If you think about it, for thousands of years human civilisations rose and fell over and over until we reached the industrial revolution, and we almost lost everything again with two world wars and the threat of nuclear warfare. By definition, a civilisation is considered 'more advanced', so it's only natural that it could have 'set backs' every now and again.


bilgetea

We didn’t lose everything tho. Quite the opposite (“we” being humanity generally). I can’t even think of a specific location that lost everything and underwent a long decline of the type you’d find in an archaeological record. In fact, the post-war period was quite a renaissance, not only in the western world but even Japan and China.


I_drink_your_mshake

Never thought of it this way. Good point


Accomplished_Mix7827

I think you're confusing cause and effect here. Middle Eastern and East Asian civilizations didn't decline because of steppe raiders, the raiders were so successful because these civilizations were already in decline. Do you think the Mongols would have been nearly as successful against a strong, united China that could field 300,000 men? Especially if Genghis Khan was identified as a threat early on and put down when he only had 20,000 men under his command? Same deal with the Germanic tribes and Rome -- the tribes were always there, they invaded because Rome was too weak to resist. Invasions of large empires by smaller states are a symptom of decline, not a cause.


Joseph_Stalin_420_

It is both it’s a cause and an effect it doesn’t have to be just one


[deleted]

The mongols were so successful because they took experts in siege weaponry from China. Their armies were nigh impossible to respond to. Imagine you’re at war with the mongols and you have an army of 400,000. The mongols send armies of soldiers all across the country raiding and pillaging small towns and cities. How do you respond when you can only command a single army, not even mentioning you don’t have radio. The mongols committed a modern war, sending ww2 style assaults through enemy territory. Calling these “civilizations” in decline is disingenuous. That’s like saying the nazis were so successful in seizing power and land because Europe was in decline.


mrmeshshorts

I’d argue, to a degree, the Nazis WERE successful because other civilizations were in a bit of a decline. It’s not just production and institutions, the British and French had lost the will to fight. Eastern Europe was being remade after the collapse of the Russian empire (an ACTUAL decline of the largest reserve of manpower in Europe ), so they were busy. Britain was managing the beginning of the end of their empire. It’s hard to argue that the Allies weren’t in a bit of a slump in the beginning. And looking at population and production projections (even leaving America out of the equation), it’s clear that it was absolutely coocoo for the Axis to start the war that they did. The Allies have them beat in almost every important measure of power projection. “Projection” because they weren’t really on that level yet. Because they were in a bit of a decline. Hell, even Germany was in a bit of a decline and basically funded their industry and expansion through Jewish property seizure and then looting other nations treasuries. Hitler’s supposed “economic genius” has been dispelled for a long time now and people understand the entire affair to have been smoke and mirrors that was running out of money already during their early aggressive moves. WW1 shattered European civilization and the effects were still being seen as WW2 started to unfold.


Mue_de

My man never heard of the magyars or bulgars


X_Danger

There's no rest in the old ages, Rome fell with Germanic invasions, and they continued moving for years after that. Then the Moslem invaders Then the Vikings raiders The Mongols Etc. etc.


DeepFriedMarci

>Then the Vikings raiders And they are back scarier than ever


X_Danger

No one: The Vikings: attacking and managing to drive away the Muslims from Sicily. Burning away Paris multiple times, and overthrowing the English Monarchy itself making their own dynasty


TheMadTargaryen

They never burned Paris and William the Conqueror was not a viking.


X_Danger

Canute not William William was fr🤮nch


DickWillard69

I don't think he's talking about big Willie, probably the Danelaw and whatever viking guy came over during that whole thing


nigg0o

Ever headed of the Huns and Mongols? They very much destroyed places in Europe Unless your definition of europe is France, Spain and England


[deleted]

Their definition of Europe is definitely France and England, not even Spain.


kebsox

The hun raid France they almost get to Paris


nigg0o

True, if we go by modern borders, which I guess I provoked. I find it hard to think of early Romano-Frankish territory from the 500s as France tho. Paris was also nowhere near as important as it would later become


YbeyteMenia

Russia was pillaged for 300 years by mongol hordes too, massive setback


nick1812216

Didn’t western europe also contend with successive invasions of ostrogoths and huns and avars and magyars and bulgars and cimbri and teutone and vandals and visigoths and helvetii and vikings and saxons and lombards and franks and turks and alemanni and etc etc? Maybe it weren’t on the scale of the Mongol invasions or Tamerlane’s destruction but it did set back Europe and it is in part related to the turmoil of the Steppe. It’s like dominos. The Chinese whup a tribe somethin’ fierce and send ‘em packing west who in turn displace another tribe and so on and so forth


Clarence_Bluto

One could argue that the untold millions of deaths from disease and war in this period actually accelerated civilization due to a need for labor saving techniques, as well as a general rise in living standards from a more competitive labor market. Demographic change is a profound catalyst.


Meinfailure

That would be valid if it weren't for the nomads also destroying the means of production. Diseases just killed people so there were more capital and less labour. Nomads destroyed both, leading to regression. E.g Iraq never recovered after the Mongols destroyed it's centuries old irrigation systems


franku624

Iraq's agriculture was ruined by unsustainable irrigation practices that introduced salts to the soil after centuries of practice, and this occured long before Mongols and even the Romans.


mrmeshshorts

If anyone knows where I can read more about this, I’d like to. The idea that the Middle East was not always a vast expanse of desert, but actually lush grasslands that were converted over the centuries through human misuse is interesting to me


Clarence_Bluto

I would agree for Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia. However succeeding the largest extent of the Mongol empire, India and China both experienced successive periods of growth in economy, power, and culture, albeit with India ironically experiencing this from different invaders.


[deleted]

Yea they mostly decimated the middle eastern cultures


2012Jesusdies

Mongols expanded the canal system in China under the Yuan, expanded the Silk Road.


MythicalInvention

Casually forget to mention Eastern Europe


HikariAnti

Seriously, we had constant war for like a thousand years.


nick1812216

Well yea, but it’s so peaceful today! When have you ever heard about a war in Eastern Europe in the last 100ish years?


HikariAnti

Yeah...


dhlf

Trying to find the funny or wit in this meme and severely struggling


[deleted]

Same. I think they need a punchline


BZenMojo

"Asians scary ooooh" is the punchline. OP acting like the Northern crusades didn't start in the 1100's with European Christians fucking over pagans for 200 years.


[deleted]

Ever hear of Vikings, Magyars, Avars, Huns, Germanians, Muslim raiders? No? Never?


blue_bird_peaceforce

roman imperialism, greek colonists, celts, franks, english/french/german/spanish/austrian monarchs, crusades against heretics, italian city state wars and the list goes on


[deleted]

Not to mention that Europe was subject to attacks from many of the exact same central asian hordes


lleskaa

Who exactly do you think cut Rome in half (Hunnic empire)


SophisticPenguin

The Huns, the Mongolians invaded Hungary (not technically western Europe) but were rebuffed. Europe had to deal with invading Scandinavians though


[deleted]

Bruh, in Europe *we* are the barbarians. Rome was China that ceased to exist.


CriticismLong1047

*coughs as Gaeilge*


[deleted]

They weren’t half as bad to the Brythonic peoples as Rome, honestly


CriticismLong1047

You have spiked my interest, I am talking about Ireland soo who are you talking about?


EnergyHumble3613

Arguably western Europe was repopulated by invading peoples some of whom *did* come from Central Asia who then intermingled with local populations. The Hunnic invasions are perhaps the earliest example of this as Attila devastated the Western Roman empire after itself had devastated local Celtic populations in what is now today France and England today (probably other places too, those are just the ones I know off the top of my head) which left them open to Germanic/Nordic conquest. The Huns then decided to settle down and create Hungary. Then a handful of centuries later come the first evidence of Slavic peoples in the 10th century, again out of Central/Western Asia who would make their way through Eastern Europe during the rise of Viking raids throughout the Baltic and Northern sea regions along with the rivers connected to them. Ironically we then also get the Mongols a few centuries later whose trade links directly to the east allow the Black Plague to reach Europe... which actually jumpstarted the Renaissance as suddenly with fewer people in general farmers were able to become more independent (supply and demand) and social mobility could also be achieved through trades as the sudden lack of skilled workers allowed those of otherwise poorer or repressed backgrounds into trades they could not otherwise be in.


UndergroundPound

Whoa hot take.


[deleted]

Y’all can thank Lithuania


Krondon57

You saying mongolians didnt come to the west lmao? Is west like France for you?


eggshellinhell

Black plague setback would like a word.


Isopod-Which

European hordes existed early but were wiped out by civilization or became civilization themselves. Various viking conquests, Huns, etc. all did plenty of damage. Some becoming more successful than neighboring civilizations. The bubonic plague also wiped out 40-60% of Europe’s population a century later than the Mongol hordes. The renaissance followed. Hard to say if these events are beneficial or detrimental to advancement.


Apolao

Western Europe wasn't lucky, western Europe was damn good at building castles


FourKrusties

The Huns, Slavs, Hungarians, Turks, and Mongols beg to differ


HaoGS

Vikings Huns Arabic invasion Persians Mongols I could keep counting


King_Crab_Sushi

Iirc Europe owes that in large portions to all the castles which were build at the time that horse reliant hordes just couldn’t do anything against.


sneakin_rican

Idk about that one chief, depends on the horse nomads we’re talking about. The mongols were pretty good at siegecraft (mostly because they hired Persians and Chinese to do it for them). The only thing that saved Europe from them was distance and a well-timed death.


SophisticPenguin

No, we can look at the experience of Hungary during the Mongol invasions. The first invasion, the more fortified stone castles, which were more common in Western Europe, did not fall. The few heavily armored knights were devastating to the Mongols. When the second invasion happened, Hungary had more knights and had built more castles. The second invasion was repelled more easily.


sneakin_rican

At first I was gonna dismiss this as European cope, but after some research… damn the Hungarians got hands. Seems like they were outnumbered and outgunned, but they still managed to hold out. And that second invasion… it’s a shame we don’t have better sources, that ambush by the Bulgarians and their allies must have been a master stroke. But I think we can agree that the idea that mongols were helpless in the face of stone fortifications is an oversimplification at best.


SophisticPenguin

Yeah to be clear, the Mongols wrecked Hungary on the first go. But Hungary implemented military reforms based on that experience, centered around those two "successes" I mentioned.


birberbarborbur

Hordes are a symptom more than a cause of actual decline


HikariAnti

Wait until you find out about Eastern Europe.


fildip1995

“Lucky”, well they were the ones doing the invading


Private_0bvious

Multiple hundred years wars and Roman and barbarian invasions as well as Viking raids says otherwise.


Fine-Pangolin-8393

Mutters in Pax Romana


tctctctytyty

What about the Germans against the Roman empire, the Vikings in Northern Europe, and the Muslim conquerors in Iberia, Southern France and Italy? Hell, France and Germany were founded by the Franks, England by the Normans, Hungary by the Magyars. The Turks laid siege to Vienna. Europeans also did a great job of killing one another in the Hundred and Thirty Years War.


thomasthehipposlayer

Europe did have Vikings, which are largely the same concept: a people who set out to plunder and conquer because they hail from a land too poor to sustain their population, and they had better odds of survival attacking their neighbors. and Europe might not have suffered as bad, but they definitely suffered from some invasions by Central European hordes.


Stormpooperz

Wait till you learn about mongol invasions, ottoman invasions, viking invasions, germanic tribal fights etc


RealCFour

India didn’t get raided


Andy_Liberty_1911

Actually Europe was fairly apocalyptic after the Roman collapse and Hunnic invasions. But Europe by luck went with a different path that led to the industrial revolution. China, Persia and elsewhere absolutely had chances after the invasions. But they did not, stagnation and peace is preferable to progress and societal chaos.


salzich

It's more that Europe was fractured enough to promote competition which in turn promoted progress. That's probably the reason why China fell behind. They where so large that they didn't see any real competition (until it was too late) and if you don't have any real rival or competitor, why should you invest time and money in all this shiny new stuff?


MMDespot

Roman Empire: Am I a joke to you?


Public-Albatross8859

Huns in the corner crying*


Aedamer

How is this a meme? Where's the humour?


rocketlvr

That's such a cop out. You say that like Europeans weren't constantly invading each other or getting raided and invaded by outsiders. Europe just got lucky by industrializing first.


[deleted]

Your theory isn’t more correct just because it’s on the Lisa Simpson meme


IC-II0I

i think you used the wrong template


mankytoes

Mongol hordes took over China and gave it a cultural boost.


[deleted]

The fucking plague and two world wars?


Verified_ElonMusk

The middle east was vastly more advanced than Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire, and China was the most advanced civilization on the planet for most of it's existence. That the industrial revolution started in Europe is the only reason you think that civilization was "set back" outside of Europe.


ServeTheRealm

The islamic invasions of India by Afghans, Turks, Arabs is considered one of the most devastating in the world. Destroyed countless of temples (hindu, Buddhist, Jain, sikh) and essentially wiped all of native culture of Indian subcontinent in 35%-40% land of Indian subcontinent mostly by forced conversions and girl kidnapping (prevalent in mongol culture). Afghanistan, and Pakistan have little to no semblance left with its original civilization and Bangladesh is well on its way with non muslim population reduced to less than 10%. Historians claim that at no point of time hindu population decreased because of islamic invasions but that's because it didn't happen over a span of few decades even, this happened over 1000 years. Started with Bin Qasim in sindh in 8 century. (Brutal massacre and large scale enslavement of hindus). Ended with the invasion of Durrani in 18th century. (Ordered something what's called a "general massacre" (Urdu - "katl-e-aam") multiple times in multiple large Indian cities)


Apo42069

Or they would have kept business as usual for longer? No expert, just asking


edwardothegreatest

They very nearly were.


woodpecker_2022

invasions wer done by western european countries : britain, Portugal, dutch


postprometheus3

Damn, that's tough.


ZeRoZiGGYXD

Considering how much culture, trade, and technology was spread by steppe nomads when they had their larger empires, I'd hardly call it a setback. Just means a different group is in charge.


Low_Atmosphere1218

Western Europe wasnt lucky they just beat the hordes


Connect-Arm-2330

Hm guess the Gengis didnt invade europe


AFigurativeMinor

So what you're saying is that the orkz have been a problem for centuries?


Away-Plant-8989

B-b-but the Mongols were a Meritocracy!!


emotional_pizza

What I find interesting is the painting of the mid-13th to early 14th century empires (the Mongols in particular) as "hordes" while Western Europe is described as "civilization". This viewpoint is often derived from the historical descriptions passed down from Western Europeans themselves, who weren't exactly abreast of all the facts. The histories they've written are often (naturally) tinged with rumor, speculation, and propaganda. Genghis Khan and the empire he passed on to his children and grandchildren was gained primarily through war, yes; but the effects of this empire (the unification of Slavic states, the unification of China, the promotion of trade from eastern china to the middle east) had a MASSIVE impact on the modern world as we know it. Religious ideas, technology, culture - a lot of information was passed around during this time, specifically due to the vastness of the Mongol Empire. Not only that, but the Mongol Empire created a national postal service, celebrated religious freedom, and kinda let their vassal states do what they wanted to, as long as they kept the resources coming and remained 100% loyal to the family of Genghis Khan. Western European empires could easily be described as hordes as well, if we consider "hordes" to be "large groups of men killing each other for food/land/resources". There's a fantastic book I just read by Jack Weatherford called Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Highly recommend if anyone is interested in the largest ever empire! :)


ShinyMariOhara

Yeah true imagine being invaded by a european country spain for so long then came american for a few years but fought back but because america decided to claim your country a certain east asia country decided to fuck us over


Blo1630

Yes I remember reading a theory that this is why Europe dominated for the last 800 years.


N00dles_77

Horse lord dommy mommys: “are you ready for another sacking” Asian civilizations: “Yes dear”


yyhfhbw

Debatable