If he did, you can post any source other than this one image that's always posted. There's no recording, or tweet, or anything of him actually saying this.
Bad guys tend to not be as strong as the good guys
People who have to resort to violence and hatred and excessive force are generally people who don't have ideas that people can latch onto and thus need to pressure the population into them, which doesn't make for loyal followers. When the chips are down people who aren't in love with their side aren't going to fight to the bitter end, they're going to find a way to get out.
This is why the Allies won both world wars, they made friends and kept their promises despite hardship. When you can't even trust your friends because they're just as evil as you, you can't coordinate effectively and get swamped.
Yeah but they usually don't last very long when they do, and tend to be defeated by more reasonable elements.
The Japanese in WWII were brutal and vicious but honestly even liberals are capable of similar brutality, they just have a more functional system supporting them so they can suffer a greater strain without breaking.
>Yeah but they usually don't last very long when they do, and tend to be defeated by more reasonable elements.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Lasts less than three generations because all their subjects rebel as soon as they aren't under threat
Thanks for proving my point anon
2 months ago
Anonymous
>three generations
2 months ago
Anonymous
>collapses into bickering disunited rump states as soon as Genghis dies
2 months ago
Anonymous
I thought they were overthrown by their subjects though?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Some Khanates held on longer than others but China isn't Mongolian anymore, nor is Afghanistan or Turkey. You'll notice the "greatest extent" of those borders didn't last very long so the image is pretty disingenuous
2 months ago
Anonymous
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Some Khanates held on longer than others but China isn't Mongolian anymore, nor is Afghanistan or Turkey.
Of course not. The Mongols were vastly outnumbered by their subjects and were destined to be absorbed by them eventually. Just like every other barbarian invader of China. They still created the largest pre-industrial empire in human history that lasted in one form or another for centuries. And they did it through genocide and atrocities.
Romans, Assyrians and Arabs did plenty of genocide and atrocities to expand their very successful empires too if you'd prefer to use them as an example. Mongols were just the best at it. Every empire in human history is built on blood.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You can be the good guys and still do some fricked up shit. Rome in particular was way more civilized than the people they took over and they provided lots of reasons for people to follow them afterwards by raising their quality of life.
The Mongols also kept people in line by providing a more functional government than the one they replaced and expansive trade to enrich their subjects.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Riiiiight. I'm sure it was the "quality of life" improvements and "expansive trade" that kept Roman and Mongolian subjects in line. Not the threat of death via brutal execution.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Correct. Glad to see you wake up to the truth anon.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Great rebuttal. Have a wonderful day.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>dude they only used the stick and the carrot never factored into it, they just raped and murdered and stacked skulls like Warhammer 40k forever and ever dude history is so dark and not at all nuanced
Begone Dan Carlin, your podcast sucks anyway
2 months ago
Anonymous
Wow if only Genghis Khan knew all he had to do to keep his vast empire in line was to be nice. What a dumbass.
The overwhelming majority of people that were ruled by the Mongols did not want to be. Full stop. From Russia to Iran to Korea. This is undeniable. They saw them as foreign barbarian invaders and loathed having to pay them taxes. No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick". As with all empires. I'm sorry if this reality makes you uncomfortable but reality isn't nice.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Genghis Khan knew all he had to do to keep his vast empire in line was to be nice
Yeah, that's why he didn't frick with people who didn't resist him and rewarded them for being loyal. >The overwhelming majority of people that were ruled by the Mongols did not want to be.
I didn't imply they did >They saw them as foreign barbarian invaders and loathed having to pay them taxes.
Some did and some didn't, and were fine with assimilating into the broader culture for protection and wealth, same as any other conquered people. The Central Asians in particular gladly adopted their customs. >No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick".
Yeah and they declined into a irrelevant, squabbling mess of loosely confederated states within a generation of the death of Genghis, and Kublai Khan was the high water mark of the post-Genghis Khans, AKA one fricking generation. Your initial assertion that the Mongols won is fricking wrong because they fell to shit as soon as the guy who created it was gone and people didn't have to worry about one of the greatest leaders in history knocking down their door. >As with all empires.
Incorrect >I'm sorry if this reality makes you uncomfortable but reality isn't nice.
Pseudountellectualism doesn't make me uncomfortable, so no, your moronic assertions don't bother me. Your argument lacks nuance and contradicts itself immediately. Genghis didn't win, he made a short lived flash in the pan empire and it immediately fell to shit when he was gone before fading into historical irrelevance outside of its geographic locales.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Yeah, that's why he didn't frick with people who didn't resist him and rewarded them for being loyal.
That only applied to other Mongol soldiers. Non-Mongols were left alone as long as they paid taxes and didn't rebel. If they did they were killed. And the Mongol soldiers only followed him because he was a brutal but efficient warlord who could make them rich by taking from others. When he would arrive at a village and they refused to submit he would often take their leaders to a neighboring village he had massacred as a warning. Afterwards they were loyal because they scared. >Some did and some didn't,....
The Russians, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Koreans and Indians did not. But sure some Turks who were already nomads or very recently may have assimilated over time. >Yeah and they declined into a irrelevant, squabbling mess of loosely confederated states within a generation of the death of Genghis
Try reading some basic fricking Mongol history moron before mouthing off about shit you don't know. The Mongol Empire EXPANDED after the death of Genghis Khan due to his descendants conquering more and more land. Sure it wasn't completely united but it was still the most powerful empire in the world for two centuries. >Incorrect
Name one empire of significance that didn't conquer, kill, pillage or enslave other people. > Genghis didn't win, he made a short lived flash in the pan empire and it immediately fell to shit when he was gone before fading into historical irrelevance outside of its geographic locales.
My brain hurts. Almost everything you have said is categorically incorrect. I can't argue with someone as idiotic as you anymore. Whatever you do please don't breed. Have a nice day.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Non-Mongols were left alone as long as they paid taxes and didn't rebel.
And we're thus enriched by being connected to a worldwide trade network >BLAHBLAHBLAH MONGOLS KILLED PEOPLE
Yeah no shit moron, this has been addressed. Are you gonna change this up anytime soon or are your r/historyfacts posts all you have to argue that Genghis didn't offer an incentive to work with him beyond not being murdered? >Yeah they did assimilate
Thanks for conceding on that point, moron. Russians arguably assimilated since their entire modern state was derived from the vassal to the Mongol Empire that was designed to extract taxes from their vassals, a tradition they proudly continue to this day. >The Mongol Empire EXPANDED after the death of Genghis Khan due to his descendants conquering more and more land.
Didnt last very long and started to shrink very quickly. >Sure it wasn't completely united but it was still the most powerful empire in the world for two centuries.
Hard to not be top dog when Europe is a backwards shithole and the Americas aren't out of the stone age during those two centuries. The United States has almost lasted longer. Rome's DECLINE lasted longer than the entire Mongol Empire lmao >name one Empire of significance that didn't conquer or kill
Apparently you had a stroke when I told you already that you can be the good guy and still do bad shit. We nuked the Japanese and killed the Indians, but overall the trajectory of the USA has been a net positive. I never said Genghis was a good guy and he clearly didn't win because his Empire didn’t last. It became parasitic and its host nations turned on them. >wah wah wah I'm gonna leave now
Go ahead anon. Run away, I'm sorry your Dan Carlin tier lack of nuance can't handle any implication that Genghis wasn't eating babies while he tried to make shitloads of different people work together for the good of his empires stability, a project his sons completely fricked up.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>And we're thus enriched by being connected to a worldwide trade network
The average person didn't benefit from that idiot. Only the elites and merchants did. They did have to pay taxes to the Mongols though. >Genghis didn't offer an incentive to work with him beyond not being murdered?
Only for other Mongols. He literally considered settled people who lived in cities to be no better than cattle. He almost depopulated all of northern China to make room for more horses until a Chinese official mentioned he could tax the local Chinese instead. Try reading some actual fricking history. >Thanks for conceding on that point
I didn't you absolute brainlet. I said the vast majority of the subjects of the Mongol empire hated being part of it. And that's undeniably true. You can use the Turk exception if you want that doesn't change the truth. Also the Russians hated the Mongols more than anyone except the Chinese. They became authoritarian and used Mongol tactics TO FIGHT THEM. >Hard to not be top dog when Europe is a backwards shithole
The Islamic world and the Chinese WERE the top dogs in the world. And the Mongols massacred them. Over and over again you mental midget. >Apparently you had a stroke when I told you already that you can be the good guy and still do bad shit.
Try re-reading what you were replying to shitforbrains.
Wow if only Genghis Khan knew all he had to do to keep his vast empire in line was to be nice. What a dumbass.
The overwhelming majority of people that were ruled by the Mongols did not want to be. Full stop. From Russia to Iran to Korea. This is undeniable. They saw them as foreign barbarian invaders and loathed having to pay them taxes. No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick". As with all empires. I'm sorry if this reality makes you uncomfortable but reality isn't nice.
>No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick". As with all empires.
You:
>Genghis Khan knew all he had to do to keep his vast empire in line was to be nice
Yeah, that's why he didn't frick with people who didn't resist him and rewarded them for being loyal. >The overwhelming majority of people that were ruled by the Mongols did not want to be.
I didn't imply they did >They saw them as foreign barbarian invaders and loathed having to pay them taxes.
Some did and some didn't, and were fine with assimilating into the broader culture for protection and wealth, same as any other conquered people. The Central Asians in particular gladly adopted their customs. >No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick".
Yeah and they declined into a irrelevant, squabbling mess of loosely confederated states within a generation of the death of Genghis, and Kublai Khan was the high water mark of the post-Genghis Khans, AKA one fricking generation. Your initial assertion that the Mongols won is fricking wrong because they fell to shit as soon as the guy who created it was gone and people didn't have to worry about one of the greatest leaders in history knocking down their door. >As with all empires.
Incorrect >I'm sorry if this reality makes you uncomfortable but reality isn't nice.
Pseudountellectualism doesn't make me uncomfortable, so no, your moronic assertions don't bother me. Your argument lacks nuance and contradicts itself immediately. Genghis didn't win, he made a short lived flash in the pan empire and it immediately fell to shit when he was gone before fading into historical irrelevance outside of its geographic locales.
>Incorrect
Incorrect how? What fricking empire didn't have a "stick" or military to back up their authority? >Genghis wasn't eating babies while he tried to make shitloads of different people work together for the good of his empires stability
No he wasn't eating babies he was burning them alive. He only made people work together after literally killing most of their neighbors. There is literally no point in engaging with you further.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Didnt last very long and started to shrink very quickly.
Except it did. And it didn't.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Western Europe was experiencing a golden age before, and during the Mongol conquests. Culturally, Economically, Religiously. Notre-Dame's towers were completed in the 1250's. Look up the 12th century renaissance, there was a huge outpour of energy into the arts, law, industry etc.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Pretty sad Golden Age if that's all you got going for you tbh
2 months ago
Anonymous
There is so much more that was going on, the outpour of energies onto the world of Medieval Europe, was up there with those of the greeks of Ionia. Far more meaningful, though I'm biased, then any empires like those mongols or Seljuks, empires based on depredation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Europe was starting to rise just as the Islamic world's golden age was winding down.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The Mongols also kept people in line by providing a more functional government than the one they replaced and expansive trade to enrich their subjects.
No they didn't.
2 months ago
Anonymous
They clearly did though given how many cities upon the Silk Road became fabulously wealthy and benefitted from being turned into trade posts after they let the Mongols in rather than being dumb enough to try resisting.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Noticed how the yuan dynasty lasted less than a hundred years before the ming took over, who nearly lasted for 300 years.
yes theyre using military hardware on women and kids and then act like they survived hiroshima dont worry though dual citizens like blinken and yellen will make sute the dirty goys go pacify iran and yemen
2 months ago
Anonymous
They're also killing shitloads of men and pacifying a violent nation so your argument is pretty much refuted lol
Frick, I don't even blame them for going so hard. If Mexico sent a bunch of dudes in to butcher people at a music festival I'd want us to bomb them back into the stone age too. If you don't want to have civillians killed you shouldn't start a fight by massacring civillians.
2 months ago
Anonymous
its too funny whites were told to shut the frick up when blm terrorized cities but oh boy when the chosen get similar violence its time for world war 3.........btw mexicans get flown in and get to annex american soil. its time for diversity in israel time for the chosen to stop deporting 50,000 blacks per year.........cue kosher wienersucker seething and excuses
2 months ago
Anonymous
The BLM riots didn't kill anywhere near as many people as the massacre at the music festival
The main cause of the revolution was the Brits not wanting the 13 Colonies to expand, there's a reason why all the founding fathers were land speculators. Expanding means wiping out the injuns and spreading slavery.
No matter who wins, I have the satisfaction of knowing that the self-styled faux elites and culturati who make up the norm enjoyer fanbase will be the first against the wall.
The good guys are the ones who show bravery and heroism even in the face of overwhelming odds. That’s the kind of kino that’s inspiring and one of humanities best qualities. I don’t care about your ideology or why you fight but if you’re willing to sacrifice your mind, body or possessions for a greater cause or in defense of your country/family/king, I got nothing but respect for that.
Nah. Think about when Greeks and Romans would go against Celts, they’d be like “yeah celts are sympathetic in some ways and have some positive attributes we civilized folk lack but still are barbarian douchbags we bravely vanquished in combat” I think most groups have a more nuanced view than “me good, you bad.” Sounds more like a modern condition tbh.
When people say stuff like this, my mind always goes back to the seething English monks writing about vikings after they got btfo'd by them. That's a pretty easy example of when history was written by the loser.
The Ottoman Empire take over the Balkans and Greece because they were a fricked up mess in the 14th-15th centuries and not able to resist a concerted invasion.
Michael Lind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare
This argues that morality is an advantage in modern war. Civilians will support guerrillas if the occupying force is nasty to them. Civilians will treat guerrillas as criminals, and hand them over to the occupying force, if the occupying force is a friend to them.
So to answer Norm, the odds are high that the good guys will win. Not 100% because other factors matter (like, a gang of Mongols can burn down your village if your village doesn't fight well) but more than 50%, like a lot more.
No because after ~30 years, the propaganda slows down and the overly-attached boomers die
At that point it becomes extremely clear who the good/bad guys were if there were any.
>normposting
up his own ass IQfygay detected
These quotes are saying the same thing, this one is just subtler.
Norm never said that btw. It's just a bullshit image.
I choose to believe he said it because I love Norm.
No, child. I am not from IQfy, nor am I a sci-fi author and political firebrand on social media. These are your delusions speaking.
Yes, child. He did.
If he did, you can post any source other than this one image that's always posted. There's no recording, or tweet, or anything of him actually saying this.
Bad guys tend to not be as strong as the good guys
People who have to resort to violence and hatred and excessive force are generally people who don't have ideas that people can latch onto and thus need to pressure the population into them, which doesn't make for loyal followers. When the chips are down people who aren't in love with their side aren't going to fight to the bitter end, they're going to find a way to get out.
This is why the Allies won both world wars, they made friends and kept their promises despite hardship. When you can't even trust your friends because they're just as evil as you, you can't coordinate effectively and get swamped.
>bad guys are mean therefore they don't have enough allies which causes them to lose
That's a very modern interpretation. Plenty of groups have won through sheer force and terror throughout history.
Yeah but they usually don't last very long when they do, and tend to be defeated by more reasonable elements.
The Japanese in WWII were brutal and vicious but honestly even liberals are capable of similar brutality, they just have a more functional system supporting them so they can suffer a greater strain without breaking.
>Yeah but they usually don't last very long when they do, and tend to be defeated by more reasonable elements.
>Lasts less than three generations because all their subjects rebel as soon as they aren't under threat
Thanks for proving my point anon
>three generations
>collapses into bickering disunited rump states as soon as Genghis dies
I thought they were overthrown by their subjects though?
Some Khanates held on longer than others but China isn't Mongolian anymore, nor is Afghanistan or Turkey. You'll notice the "greatest extent" of those borders didn't last very long so the image is pretty disingenuous
>Some Khanates held on longer than others but China isn't Mongolian anymore, nor is Afghanistan or Turkey.
Of course not. The Mongols were vastly outnumbered by their subjects and were destined to be absorbed by them eventually. Just like every other barbarian invader of China. They still created the largest pre-industrial empire in human history that lasted in one form or another for centuries. And they did it through genocide and atrocities.
Romans, Assyrians and Arabs did plenty of genocide and atrocities to expand their very successful empires too if you'd prefer to use them as an example. Mongols were just the best at it. Every empire in human history is built on blood.
You can be the good guys and still do some fricked up shit. Rome in particular was way more civilized than the people they took over and they provided lots of reasons for people to follow them afterwards by raising their quality of life.
The Mongols also kept people in line by providing a more functional government than the one they replaced and expansive trade to enrich their subjects.
Riiiiight. I'm sure it was the "quality of life" improvements and "expansive trade" that kept Roman and Mongolian subjects in line. Not the threat of death via brutal execution.
Correct. Glad to see you wake up to the truth anon.
Great rebuttal. Have a wonderful day.
>dude they only used the stick and the carrot never factored into it, they just raped and murdered and stacked skulls like Warhammer 40k forever and ever dude history is so dark and not at all nuanced
Begone Dan Carlin, your podcast sucks anyway
Wow if only Genghis Khan knew all he had to do to keep his vast empire in line was to be nice. What a dumbass.
The overwhelming majority of people that were ruled by the Mongols did not want to be. Full stop. From Russia to Iran to Korea. This is undeniable. They saw them as foreign barbarian invaders and loathed having to pay them taxes. No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick". As with all empires. I'm sorry if this reality makes you uncomfortable but reality isn't nice.
>Genghis Khan knew all he had to do to keep his vast empire in line was to be nice
Yeah, that's why he didn't frick with people who didn't resist him and rewarded them for being loyal.
>The overwhelming majority of people that were ruled by the Mongols did not want to be.
I didn't imply they did
>They saw them as foreign barbarian invaders and loathed having to pay them taxes.
Some did and some didn't, and were fine with assimilating into the broader culture for protection and wealth, same as any other conquered people. The Central Asians in particular gladly adopted their customs.
>No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick".
Yeah and they declined into a irrelevant, squabbling mess of loosely confederated states within a generation of the death of Genghis, and Kublai Khan was the high water mark of the post-Genghis Khans, AKA one fricking generation. Your initial assertion that the Mongols won is fricking wrong because they fell to shit as soon as the guy who created it was gone and people didn't have to worry about one of the greatest leaders in history knocking down their door.
>As with all empires.
Incorrect
>I'm sorry if this reality makes you uncomfortable but reality isn't nice.
Pseudountellectualism doesn't make me uncomfortable, so no, your moronic assertions don't bother me. Your argument lacks nuance and contradicts itself immediately. Genghis didn't win, he made a short lived flash in the pan empire and it immediately fell to shit when he was gone before fading into historical irrelevance outside of its geographic locales.
>Yeah, that's why he didn't frick with people who didn't resist him and rewarded them for being loyal.
That only applied to other Mongol soldiers. Non-Mongols were left alone as long as they paid taxes and didn't rebel. If they did they were killed. And the Mongol soldiers only followed him because he was a brutal but efficient warlord who could make them rich by taking from others. When he would arrive at a village and they refused to submit he would often take their leaders to a neighboring village he had massacred as a warning. Afterwards they were loyal because they scared.
>Some did and some didn't,....
The Russians, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Koreans and Indians did not. But sure some Turks who were already nomads or very recently may have assimilated over time.
>Yeah and they declined into a irrelevant, squabbling mess of loosely confederated states within a generation of the death of Genghis
Try reading some basic fricking Mongol history moron before mouthing off about shit you don't know. The Mongol Empire EXPANDED after the death of Genghis Khan due to his descendants conquering more and more land. Sure it wasn't completely united but it was still the most powerful empire in the world for two centuries.
>Incorrect
Name one empire of significance that didn't conquer, kill, pillage or enslave other people.
> Genghis didn't win, he made a short lived flash in the pan empire and it immediately fell to shit when he was gone before fading into historical irrelevance outside of its geographic locales.
My brain hurts. Almost everything you have said is categorically incorrect. I can't argue with someone as idiotic as you anymore. Whatever you do please don't breed. Have a nice day.
>Non-Mongols were left alone as long as they paid taxes and didn't rebel.
And we're thus enriched by being connected to a worldwide trade network
>BLAHBLAHBLAH MONGOLS KILLED PEOPLE
Yeah no shit moron, this has been addressed. Are you gonna change this up anytime soon or are your r/historyfacts posts all you have to argue that Genghis didn't offer an incentive to work with him beyond not being murdered?
>Yeah they did assimilate
Thanks for conceding on that point, moron. Russians arguably assimilated since their entire modern state was derived from the vassal to the Mongol Empire that was designed to extract taxes from their vassals, a tradition they proudly continue to this day.
>The Mongol Empire EXPANDED after the death of Genghis Khan due to his descendants conquering more and more land.
Didnt last very long and started to shrink very quickly.
>Sure it wasn't completely united but it was still the most powerful empire in the world for two centuries.
Hard to not be top dog when Europe is a backwards shithole and the Americas aren't out of the stone age during those two centuries. The United States has almost lasted longer. Rome's DECLINE lasted longer than the entire Mongol Empire lmao
>name one Empire of significance that didn't conquer or kill
Apparently you had a stroke when I told you already that you can be the good guy and still do bad shit. We nuked the Japanese and killed the Indians, but overall the trajectory of the USA has been a net positive. I never said Genghis was a good guy and he clearly didn't win because his Empire didn’t last. It became parasitic and its host nations turned on them.
>wah wah wah I'm gonna leave now
Go ahead anon. Run away, I'm sorry your Dan Carlin tier lack of nuance can't handle any implication that Genghis wasn't eating babies while he tried to make shitloads of different people work together for the good of his empires stability, a project his sons completely fricked up.
>And we're thus enriched by being connected to a worldwide trade network
The average person didn't benefit from that idiot. Only the elites and merchants did. They did have to pay taxes to the Mongols though.
>Genghis didn't offer an incentive to work with him beyond not being murdered?
Only for other Mongols. He literally considered settled people who lived in cities to be no better than cattle. He almost depopulated all of northern China to make room for more horses until a Chinese official mentioned he could tax the local Chinese instead. Try reading some actual fricking history.
>Thanks for conceding on that point
I didn't you absolute brainlet. I said the vast majority of the subjects of the Mongol empire hated being part of it. And that's undeniably true. You can use the Turk exception if you want that doesn't change the truth. Also the Russians hated the Mongols more than anyone except the Chinese. They became authoritarian and used Mongol tactics TO FIGHT THEM.
>Hard to not be top dog when Europe is a backwards shithole
The Islamic world and the Chinese WERE the top dogs in the world. And the Mongols massacred them. Over and over again you mental midget.
>Apparently you had a stroke when I told you already that you can be the good guy and still do bad shit.
Try re-reading what you were replying to shitforbrains.
>No matter many "carrots" they gave to their subjects the empire would have broken up in a second without the ever-present threat of the "stick". As with all empires.
You:
>Incorrect
Incorrect how? What fricking empire didn't have a "stick" or military to back up their authority?
>Genghis wasn't eating babies while he tried to make shitloads of different people work together for the good of his empires stability
No he wasn't eating babies he was burning them alive. He only made people work together after literally killing most of their neighbors. There is literally no point in engaging with you further.
>Didnt last very long and started to shrink very quickly.
Except it did. And it didn't.
Western Europe was experiencing a golden age before, and during the Mongol conquests. Culturally, Economically, Religiously. Notre-Dame's towers were completed in the 1250's. Look up the 12th century renaissance, there was a huge outpour of energy into the arts, law, industry etc.
Pretty sad Golden Age if that's all you got going for you tbh
There is so much more that was going on, the outpour of energies onto the world of Medieval Europe, was up there with those of the greeks of Ionia. Far more meaningful, though I'm biased, then any empires like those mongols or Seljuks, empires based on depredation.
Europe was starting to rise just as the Islamic world's golden age was winding down.
>The Mongols also kept people in line by providing a more functional government than the one they replaced and expansive trade to enrich their subjects.
No they didn't.
They clearly did though given how many cities upon the Silk Road became fabulously wealthy and benefitted from being turned into trade posts after they let the Mongols in rather than being dumb enough to try resisting.
Noticed how the yuan dynasty lasted less than a hundred years before the ming took over, who nearly lasted for 300 years.
or israels case where dumb americans do the fighting if the chosen decide they hate a country
Isn't Israel currently destroying a country without American involvement?
yes theyre using military hardware on women and kids and then act like they survived hiroshima dont worry though dual citizens like blinken and yellen will make sute the dirty goys go pacify iran and yemen
They're also killing shitloads of men and pacifying a violent nation so your argument is pretty much refuted lol
Frick, I don't even blame them for going so hard. If Mexico sent a bunch of dudes in to butcher people at a music festival I'd want us to bomb them back into the stone age too. If you don't want to have civillians killed you shouldn't start a fight by massacring civillians.
its too funny whites were told to shut the frick up when blm terrorized cities but oh boy when the chosen get similar violence its time for world war 3.........btw mexicans get flown in and get to annex american soil. its time for diversity in israel time for the chosen to stop deporting 50,000 blacks per year.........cue kosher wienersucker seething and excuses
The BLM riots didn't kill anywhere near as many people as the massacre at the music festival
The American Revolutionary War is the only conflict where I can definitively say the good guys won.
The main cause of the revolution was the Brits not wanting the 13 Colonies to expand, there's a reason why all the founding fathers were land speculators. Expanding means wiping out the injuns and spreading slavery.
this is true. they also wanted to expand into Quebec and replace the Catholic French there
The US should forget about all of this middle east and europe stuff and get back to basics.
No matter who wins, I have the satisfaction of knowing that the self-styled faux elites and culturati who make up the norm enjoyer fanbase will be the first against the wall.
The good guys are the ones who show bravery and heroism even in the face of overwhelming odds. That’s the kind of kino that’s inspiring and one of humanities best qualities. I don’t care about your ideology or why you fight but if you’re willing to sacrifice your mind, body or possessions for a greater cause or in defense of your country/family/king, I got nothing but respect for that.
If both sides are doing that, then who are the good guys? Good vs evil is meaningless if that's your definition.
The individuals on both sides who act heroically are the good guys. The cowards who flee from responsibility are evil.
Nah. Think about when Greeks and Romans would go against Celts, they’d be like “yeah celts are sympathetic in some ways and have some positive attributes we civilized folk lack but still are barbarian douchbags we bravely vanquished in combat” I think most groups have a more nuanced view than “me good, you bad.” Sounds more like a modern condition tbh.
the good guys certainly didn't win when they destroyed and reduced my country to slavery from 1945 to 1990
When people say stuff like this, my mind always goes back to the seething English monks writing about vikings after they got btfo'd by them. That's a pretty easy example of when history was written by the loser.
Vikings couldn't really write though.
Yes they could
With what? Rocks? They didn't even use paper. They didn't record much beyond a few runes boasting about military victories and religious stuff.
>rocks
Yeah unironically.
They also had a huge oral tradition with the Sagas which is why we have so much of their literature.
>Rocks and oral traditions
Wow. No wonder we know so much about them.
Yeah bro. Crazy how that shit happens
>thinks most of what we know of the Vikings didn't come from the people they fought against
In nature the successful organism out-competes its rivals that are weaker or cannot adapt to environmental changes.
The Ottoman Empire take over the Balkans and Greece because they were a fricked up mess in the 14th-15th centuries and not able to resist a concerted invasion.
Michael Lind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare
This argues that morality is an advantage in modern war. Civilians will support guerrillas if the occupying force is nasty to them. Civilians will treat guerrillas as criminals, and hand them over to the occupying force, if the occupying force is a friend to them.
So to answer Norm, the odds are high that the good guys will win. Not 100% because other factors matter (like, a gang of Mongols can burn down your village if your village doesn't fight well) but more than 50%, like a lot more.
Norm didn't say that.
No because after ~30 years, the propaganda slows down and the overly-attached boomers die
At that point it becomes extremely clear who the good/bad guys were if there were any.