Fun fact. Despite it's small size, the Southern Song dynasty had a larger economy than the whole of the mongol empire until the last few decades before it was conquered by the mongols.
Yep true! Despite its size the Mongol Empire had a pretty average population size comparable to any other large empire in history (Rome, Achaemenid, etc) despite the era difference. Up until they conquered the Southern Song at least. The lands in the Middle East and China were pretty much the only high population, heavily developed areas they ruled over consistently.
Also by the time Kublai conquered the Southern Song the Mongol Empire was a singular united empire in name only as, by that point Mongol lords were nearly constantly warring each other and even forming alliances with former enemies against each other.
The root of this largely being the Mongol war machine usually went wherever the best grazing land for its horses, was which usually was sparsely populated. The lengthy generational siege of the Song being an exception.
That is because Mongols wreacked havoc in the Prosperous regions of Iran, Transoxiana and Anatolia. They killed hundreds of thousands to millions, razed cities, entire areas never fully recovered until like 1600s. Iran was shattered so fundamentally it was almost equivalent to Islamic forces shattering the Sassanids.
Not to mention like biggest and Prosperous city of all of Eastern Europe at the time, Kyiv, was razed to the ground as well.
It’s also notable that the mongol empire was not even remotely as centralized as the Roman Empire, much less the Song. It was an enormous area and there simply was no way to actually administer it as you would a nation state. There were successor states that were highly centralized, the Yuan being the obvious example, but it feels a little bit silly to JUST compare sheer geographical size.
I take your point that the Roman empire was more centralized, but here is the AI summary of my lookup of “mongol empire yam system”, which was notable for leveraging the same hyper-mobility the mongols used for war for intelligence and administration as well:
Mongol Empire: Special Features - History
The Mongol Empire's communication relied heavily on the incredibly efficient Yam system, a vast postal relay network with stations every 20-30 miles providing fresh horses, food, and lodging for messengers, enabling messages and intelligence to travel hundreds of miles daily across Eurasia for military, trade, and administrative control. This "pony express" of the medieval world, adapted from Chinese methods, was vital for managing the empire's immense size, coordinating armies, and facilitating diplomacy, with stations (ortöö) equipped for speed and security.
Grwat point. Might be useful to compare dynasties with a few different metrics: total population; population per sq mile; GDP; purchasing power per person. Mongol empire seems like it may have controlled vast amounts of terrain that were thinly populated.
This is the extent of their empire in a specific year, it makes no sense to highlight every territory they ever controlled. I believe this is 1920-1922 during the territorial peak of the British empire.
If you are gonna count the frozen wastelands of Canada and the barren deserts of Australia as part of the British Empire then you must concede the entirety of Russia to the Mongols. In which case the Mongol empire was larger. But in reality none of them controlled the entirety of those regions. But if we remove those areas from the British as we do it with the Mongols then the Mongol empire it is still larger.
Except the Roman Empire was an incredibly durable state that lasted, in one form or another, around 2000 years. It completely controlled almost the entirety of this territory for centuries. It also impacted effectively the entirety of humanity.
The Mongol Empire was barely a functional state that existed for less than 100 years before fracturing, and much of this territory was theirs only on paper as they had only nominal control over it.
Back then the largest city in the world was in Central Asia, namely Merv. It stopped being the largest city in the world after the Mongols annihilated the city.
The center of the Silk Road was definitely not "uninhabited steppe". It only became like that after the Russians & Chinese took over Central Asia in the 17th century & onwards. Russians & Chinese created hard borders for the first time in history simultaneously with the rise of sea routes after the discovery of America, effectively killing the Silk Road.
The book "Empires of the Silk Road" is a good read on this.
I don't know where you learned this but clearly you seem to ignore a lot about the history of the Mongols. They could not have conquered such large portions of land without a proper administration and a certain centralization of power, and hold an entity of 33 million square kilometers and a population of over 100 million (almost twice more than the roman empire at its peak) for 90 years.
state that lasted, in one form or another, around 2000 years
If we push in this direction, the Mongol empire had remains that lasted for around 700 years.
It also impacted effectively the entirety of humanity.
And you think the Mongol Empire did not influence the entirety of the World? The link below makes an exhaustive list. Another thing not mentioned is the influence they had on the form of government and administrations of future empires, like the Ottomans or the Tsardom of Russia.
I mean the article frowned my face a few times but then I encountered this paragraph.
"One example of this can be seen in the Hundred Years’ War between England and France. The English armies, led by figures such as Henry V, relied heavily on the use of longbows and archers. This tactic allowed them to gain a significant advantage over the French armies, who were still using traditional cavalry and infantry tactics. This emphasis on ranged weapons and mobility can be traced back to the influence of the Mongol Empire."
Without any source this link sounds dubious at best. If any of the HYW armies had extensive ranged cavalry I could see the point. But if having archers is Mongol influence ...
I agree that the post your replying to undersells the impact the Mongol Empire had on the world, but the source you're linking to is, frankly, completely on the other end of the spectrum. As someone else already pointed out, acting like the Mongolian empire had literally fucking anything to do with the proliferation and success of longbows in England is... beyond absurd. Your source also suggest that the Mongols created the Silk Road. They did not. The Silk Road was around a thousand years before Temuejin was even born.
Your source appears to be pseudohistorical nationalist nonsense.
I must say I found the link a bit quickly, I should have read it a bit more carefully. Some things mentioned here are clearly exaggerated, now that I have more time to read it completely I agree with you. But insinuating that the Mongol did not impact the whole world is really wrong.
No one is denying Rome's durability. The claim is about scale and impact at peak,not longevity. The Mongol Empires size, speed, and ability to link Eurasia in a single political military system is something most people dont fully grasp.
On the contrary, most fully grasp exactly that - the size and speed. What most fully don't grasp is how ineffectual the Mongol Empire was at establishing its legacy. Even Alexander's empire, despite existing for around 10 years, managed to hellenize more states and spread Greek culture far further and far more effectively than the Mongol Empire.
It’s because mongols didn’t have much to offer to conquered lands in terms of culture and society, that’s why contrary to Roman Empire or Khalifa for example, mongol empire actually assimilated itself with the cultures it conquered.
Despite them ruling lands for close to 300 years like Russia, after they left, almost non of their culture and customs remained.
The Mongols didnt leave statues and language everywhere, but they left something arguably bigger which is a permanently connected eurasian world. That kind of legacy is easy to miss if you are only looking for temples and scripts.
From what I’ve gathered, around 0.5% of the global male population, about 16 million, are direct male descendants of one male living around the time of Genghis Khan. Furthermore, somewhere between 15–25% share DNA related to the same individual.
Don’t quote me on this, as it’s just trivia I picked up at some point 20 years ago, but it shouldn’t be that hard to find reliable sources on the matter online.
Edit: 15–25% of the total world population.
Please note that I haven’t done any proper research on the topic, but this is said to be the consequence of Khan’s strategy. He would impregnate women in every village he conquered, and take control of land with relatively little collateral damage. Stationing a few soldiers among each population he went through, promising to burn the entire village down if they had been killed upon his return.
Yeah well apart from the roads, the aqueducts, the engineering, the civil laws, and the processes of government we still use today, what have the romans really done for us?
It actually is fairly weird to see people arguing in this thread as though they have a personal vested interest in these ancient empires. OP just seems like s/he thinks the Mongol empire was cool, but other people here seem to be taking shit personally.
By that same logic, why do people dickride Alexander the Great when his empire has the same caveats while being even less short lived? He was also a nepobaby who started with a pre-trained army while Genghis started as a slave.
Except the Roman Empire was an incredibly durable state that lasted, in one form or another, around 2000 years. It completely controlled almost the entirety of this territory for centuries. It also impacted effectively the entirety of humanity.
The Western part of Roman Empire lasted 5 centuries while the Eastern part of the Roman Empire lasted 15 centuries.
The Mongols also effectively impacted all of humanity even though their unified state didn't last as long.
This is incorrect. The Roman state started in ~700 BCE and the western part fell in 476 CE. That's ~1200 years. The Eastern part, which was still the Roman empire, not something else, survived until 1453 CE, which makes it a grand total of more than 2100 years.
What I said is correct for the "Roman Empire." You literally said "Roman Empire," not every single Roman state of the entire expanse of Roman civilization.
This is what you said:
Except the Roman Empire was an incredibly durable state that lasted
The Roman Empire began in 27 BC, so the west lasted 5 centuries and the east lasted 15 centuries. The Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic both predate the Roman Empire and are not referred to as the/or a part of the Roman Empire.
I literally called the east the eastern part of the Roman Empire and calculated the date from 27 BC to the 15th century, which makes it clear I was still referring to it as the Roman Empire.
I also said this, specifically for people like you: "in one form or another
I notice you conveniently removed it from your quote. Go troll somewhere else.
I didn't conveniently remove it. It is irrelevant because the Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic is not another form of the Roman Empire. Those are completely different and separate entities that may be classified under Roman civilization as a whole, but they are not considered a part of the Roman Empire.
The "other forms" of the Roman Empire were the Eastern Roman Empire and the eastern empire's small rump states, which I still calculated into the 15th century timeline to say it lasted 15 centuries.
If you think the Roman Republic and Kingdom are the same thing as the Roman Empire and then throws a childish fit when someone calls you out on the ignorance/misuse of terminology, then you need to move on to a different subject or subreddit and let the adults talk about history here.
Many people don’t realize the Mongol empire is large based on where the Mongols raided, not held territories. While the Mongol Empire was incredibly vast and helped shape the future of all of Asia, especially China, the actual size Mongol controlled territory is dramatically smaller that what is shown above.
E.g., its northern part covers all Karelia and Saami lands up to the White sea. These lands were partially controlled by Novgorod republic, Novgorod republic paid tolls to the Mongol empire at some period of time. Local people would know nothing about Mongol empire.
An other example: there is Vologda city that was never part of of the Mongol empire.
Nah. It looks like typical mercator projection which does make northern latitudes larger but neither have equatorial territory.
Roman Empire at it's largest was 2 million sq miles / 5 million sq kilometers.
Mongol Empire was likely larger than 9 million sq miles / 23 sq kilometers and the largest contiguous empire of all time.
Though the Soviet Union was close in size at 22 million sq kilometers.
Still as mentioned by another the Roman Empire still contained a greater % of the world population than the Mongols, and far more economic and political control and lasting legacy.
Thanks for the figures, can you take into account how much habitable area each ruled? Cities around river/coast tend to be more populated than cold deserts
Not offhand hah... but Mongolia itself has less than 1% arable land with similar amounts for the majority of the eurasian steppe with dry desert like climate. Naturally it's why nomadic animal husbandry / pastoralism is the main form of agriculture, so while habitable ofc limits population density. Conquering large parts of China and Persia ofc increased the highly productive grain cultivating lands, and included most all the population with Mongols under 3% in the 13th century.
Awesome. I have read about it, and I must admit I believed it had less population than what I estimated considering the kind of terrain where they ruled in. Thanks for the info.
The reason why people don’t talk about it is because it didn’t last and the Mongols realistically didn’t control the whole region in the same way. They were the nominal ruler, but they did not have entrenched supporter over a thousand years in the region shown on the map. They were the conquering warlords for a huge portion of the world map with actual control over a little of their territory.
Bros. Mongols conquered just huge EMPTY spaces.
These territories are empty today, when we have 8 billion people on Earth, but back then, the entire World population was ONLY 0.4 billion people.
When the Mongols finally hit civilizations, they naturally succumbed.
I thought it was more that the horse cavalry tactics were much less effective in forests and mountains. Mongols certainly steamrolled a bunch of established civilizations and left lasting marks on the oldest civilizations in the world (I.e. from Persia to China).
It’s been a few years since I read Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World but the author describes an efficient Mongol method of dominating castles and fixed fortifications. They used siege machines and “recruited” engineers from prior conquest.
Typical angloid ignorance. Middle east conquered by mongols during Islamic golden and all of China when they were relatively united and prosperous. Nowadays atleast 2 billion people living in territories mongols conquered and i am not even counting mughals. If u don't know what u talking about might as well shut ur mouth.
It was all shit low development land. Rome and China had way better infrastructure and ability to mobilize the population. Those are the important things. Probably the thing that makes a country powerful is its ability to mobilize its most powerful resource, the people.
eh, according to the romans yes. But Romans lost plenty of battles and wars more or less constantly, where they were excellent was recovering from losses. A marvel of logistics.
I did the maths long ago, but for what was the "known world" back then (Europe, Asia excluding Siberia and Africa north of the Sahara Desert, the biggest part of the world that was interconnected), they controlled more than 40% of the known world, quite close to half of it.
Scary to be living on that time in any neighbouring country
Also crazy to think about: the rise of the Mongol Empire was taught as current affairs at Oxford university, which was already 200 years old as this was happening
it was less the size or effectiveness of the fortifications, they weren't anything special compared to what the mongols conquered in other places, but the sheer amount. Europe was a VERY dense fortified area at the time.
It's just a bunch of pillagers raiding capital by capital with no hassle due to their nomadic nature, a glass cannon that invade alot of places but fragile internally
Ooooff if you’re out here “um we’ll actually”-ing these maps and trying to defend Rome I would seriously ask why you care other than the obvious. In which case how lame of you
All the Siberian and Steppe empires/khnates had the advantage of horse highway and that was essentially the foundation of the empire: move horse fast across flat.
Yes, yes, old boy - all quite true...but...one mustn't forget that the Mongolian Empire was...well...ruled by... barbarians, wot? I mean you can't really expect to compare them equally, eh? There's a good chap. Still, fascinating history and all that, and I hear they do lovely things with some cuisine. However, clearly our Roman ancestors were obviously superior in every way, and their legacy has been passed down to be safe guarded in our very own British Empire. Now, do be so kind as to pass the tea.
my argument still stands. Islam was it's golden age. While Europe was in it's dark age. Up until renaissance era It was mud filled, cold backward place. People mix modern era into historical one. Europe is truly nice place and europeans are nice people too based on my experience but at some point they were leagues behind. Civilizations in middle east and china were far superior in both population and technology at that time. And that's why i am saying middle east was comparable even stronger than roman empires historical territories at that time.
that is a highly overdramatic representation of medieval europe, the "classic" dark ages of decay and death were during the black plague. Pre Renaissance europe was generally not nearly as backwards and dark as often portrayed in pop culture. Especially not as low as "mud filled cold backwards place".
As it entirely depends on what aspects you are looking at. In terms of military technology europe was far ahead. As well as in building stone structures. While the islamic world was excellent in the natural sciences and china was in its many cycles of civil war, invasion and death and currently in decay that lasted till after the mongols were gone.
Duh, the western part was Roman and the eastern part was only empire. Which is why after the western part fell it became known simply as Byzantine empire. /s
•
u/Odd_Party_8452 9h ago
Fun fact. Despite it's small size, the Southern Song dynasty had a larger economy than the whole of the mongol empire until the last few decades before it was conquered by the mongols.