Please note that absolutely none of Gunga's response serves to establish a contention that the Mongols' influence lasted more that "a season" historically. Temujin died in 1227. His successor, Ogedei, was dead by 1241. The "empire" of the Mongols was never unitary in the sense that either the Chinese or the Roman empires were, and was divided into Khanates even in the lifetime of Temujin. It can be more accurately compared to the middle and late periods of the Osmanli empire--a series of loosely united satrapies which might or might not, and usually did not, pay tribute to the alleged central authority.
Even in China, which was actually not conquered completely until after the death of Temujin, the Yuan dynasty did not last for even one century.
The Wikipedia article of Ogedei wrote:?-gedei's death in 1241, brought the Mongol invasion of Europe to a premature end. The commanders heard the news as they were advancing on Vienna, and withdrew for the kuriltai in Mongolia, never again to return so far west.
His son Güyük eventually succeeded him after the five-year regency of his widow Töregene Khatun. But Batu Khan, Khan of the Kipchak Khanate in Russia, never accepted Guyuk, who died on the way to confront him. It was not until 1255, well into the reign of Mongke Khan, that Batu felt secure enough to again prepare to invade Europe. Fortunately for the Europeans, he died before his plans could be implemented. His son intended to carry them out, but he also died, and in 1258, Batu's brother Berke, ascended to the Kipchak Khanate. A muslim, he was more interested in stopping his cousin Hulagu from doing any more damage to the Holy Land than invading Europe. Historians begin the decline of the united Mongol Empire from Ogedei's death, though Mongke's ascention halted the interfamily fighting for a time.
The Mongol "empire" was never a unitary empire in the sense that the Roman empire was a unitary empire, and the Roman empire enjoyed that status for many consecutive centuries. Several of the Chinese dynasties have survived for centuries, ruling over a unitary empire. Looking at the career of Temujin and Ogedei, one can, at a stretch, allege a Mongol "empire" that lasts from 1206 to 1241--thirty-five years. Leaving aside the rather vague nature of the reference to
The Washington Post, i would simply point out that daily newspapers are not a source which i despise, but neither are they a primary source which i consult on the subject of world history.
What was the influence of Temujin on the subcontinent? On Macronesia and Micronesia? On Africa? On North and South America? The so-called Mongol "empire" was a non-event for a significant portion of the world. Given that billions of men and women lived and died in the period 1000-2000 CE, and at the least, millions of them had a significant influence on history--being chosen by an unidentified authority at
The Washington Post as man of the millenium does not alter my thesis with reference to the topic of this thread, which was:
Superiority of military technology does not guarantee conquest, and is never either universal nor perpetual.
Furthermore, i see nothing offered in refutation of my contention that, absent effective leadership, the technological superiority of the compound short bow used by the Turks and Mongols was meaningless. In more than 2000 years of its use, they were able effectively to impinge on the outside world exactly twice--Attila and Temujin.
These constitute my major and minor theses with reference to the overblown estimation of the significance of that bow.
>[/size]
[/size]
