Were there some benefits from Mongol invasions?

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,198
Europix
#11
The Mongol expansion covered so many regions and peoples. As for those on the western fringe, i.e., places such as Hungary, Lithuania, Silesia, Moravia and Poland, I don't see any benefits for those people. It may be because the Mongols plundered, then left.
You might not believed it, but it triggered very deep reformation of the Hungarian state, reforms that reinforced it and boosted it's development. In a couple of decades they faced the Ottoman Empire at it's best, and Hungary was matching them, and for a good couple of centuries.

Same could be said about Poland.
 
Likes: Spike117

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,367
US
#12
You might not believed it, but it triggered very deep reformation of the Hungarian state, reforms that reinforced it and boosted it's development. In a couple of decades they faced the Ottoman Empire at it's best, and Hungary was matching them, and for a good couple of centuries.

Same could be said about Poland.
I have read that Hungary suffered like few others in Europe, losing a good portion of their population, to the point that Germans were asked to immigrate to repopulate the country.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,198
Europix
#13
I have read that Hungary suffered like few others in Europe, losing a good portion of their population, to the point that Germans were asked to immigrate to repopulate the country.
Well, the other parts of Europe were ravaged as Mongol passed, in Hungary Mongols stayed. You see what I mean ...

On Germans asked to migrate to repopulate, it's more debatable. Hungary had a policy of bringing/accepting foreign population well before the two Mongol attacks, and it continued well after.

That policy is one of the things explaining how from pagan steppe warriors Hungarians in 1000 we arrive in 1400 to Hungarian Renaissance princes.

Trivia: Haydn family had two very gifted musically kids. One left for England, the other preferred Hungary ;)
 
Likes: Rodger
Jan 2019
89
Southeast Asia
#15
It's like saying that WW 2 has benefits or not, some get the bad part, the others get the good part.

What I notice is that immediately after the Mongol invasion

- there is certainly a higher degree of interconnectivity than ever before that a European can travel to China and Southeast Asia and a Chinese could travel to Northern Africa and Europe. The Black Death spread that wide and fast because of this interconnectivity.

- As the wealth of China become known, Merchants from Europe could trade in China and get a profit several times their capital. Many travel accounts will inspire later European to explore in the Early Modern Age, in fact one of the early attempt to find a sea route to Asia happen during late 13th century.

- Fragmented China are at least united under one regime once more.

- Rapid transfer of gunpowder weapon in Eurasia. Roger Bacon started writing about gunpowder just a few year after William of Rubruck return from his visit to Karakorum. There are no known European accounts of gunpowder before this. While I don't know of other technological transfer, it is possible that some technology diffuse to the West.



I overall disagree that the Mongol invasion destroy the Islamic world and China, so much that they could not recover.

- The Middle East is arguably stronger compared to Europe in the 1300, 1400, 1500 and 1600 than they are during the Early Medieval Period and the Crusade. The Ottoman Empire is really the biggest proof of this in which just one tribal states could eventually manage to defeat rising European powers many times, become a relatively stable state and actually hold lands in Europe, while the Caliphate fracture quickly and unable to defeat the Byzantines. The Middle East is also entering its most united and stable phase since the Roman-Sassanid time. If we count the Mughal and various Islamic states in Southeast Asia and Africa, the Islamic world in 1700 is vastly stronger, bigger and wealthier than during the Caliphate or pre-Mongol times and in my opinion could compare with Europe favorably.

- The Ming managed to control most of East Asia compared to the Song and there are really no enemies that could rival or threaten the Ming this time, unlike during the Tang and Song. Also the Ming Dynasty is so wealthy that they can fund Zheng He's voyage. Also the fact that they can bring that many troops across the sea really show that the Ming is stronger than the previous dynasties, China and the Middle East is only look comparatively weaker because Europeans progress much in the 14th-15th century.
 
Mar 2014
1,796
Lithuania
#16
It's like saying that WW 2 has benefits or not, some get the bad part, the others get the good part.

What I notice is that immediately after the Mongol invasion

- there is certainly a higher degree of interconnectivity than ever before that a European can travel to China and Southeast Asia and a Chinese could travel to Northern Africa and Europe. The Black Death spread that wide and fast because of this interconnectivity.

- As the wealth of China become known, Merchants from Europe could trade in China and get a profit several times their capital. Many travel accounts will inspire later European to explore in the Early Modern Age, in fact one of the early attempt to find a sea route to Asia happen during late 13th century.

- Fragmented China are at least united under one regime once more.

- Rapid transfer of gunpowder weapon in Eurasia. Roger Bacon started writing about gunpowder just a few year after William of Rubruck return from his visit to Karakorum. There are no known European accounts of gunpowder before this. While I don't know of other technological transfer, it is possible that some technology diffuse to the West.



I overall disagree that the Mongol invasion destroy the Islamic world and China, so much that they could not recover.

- The Middle East is arguably stronger compared to Europe in the 1300, 1400, 1500 and 1600 than they are during the Early Medieval Period and the Crusade. The Ottoman Empire is really the biggest proof of this in which just one tribal states could eventually manage to defeat rising European powers many times, become a relatively stable state and actually hold lands in Europe, while the Caliphate fracture quickly and unable to defeat the Byzantines. The Middle East is also entering its most united and stable phase since the Roman-Sassanid time. If we count the Mughal and various Islamic states in Southeast Asia and Africa, the Islamic world in 1700 is vastly stronger, bigger and wealthier than during the Caliphate or pre-Mongol times and in my opinion could compare with Europe favorably.

- The Ming managed to control most of East Asia compared to the Song and there are really no enemies that could rival or threaten the Ming this time, unlike during the Tang and Song. Also the Ming Dynasty is so wealthy that they can fund Zheng He's voyage. Also the fact that they can bring that many troops across the sea really show that the Ming is stronger than the previous dynasties, China and the Middle East is only look comparatively weaker because Europeans progress much in the 14th-15th century.
Newsflash, there were probably something like 50 Europeans who actually moved to China through Mongol empire, not sure if that is such a great benefit. Name me more than one Merchant who made a way with goods from China to Europe during rule of Mongol empire? Gunpowder and some military tactics the only things that could be benefits of Mongol expansion.
 
Jan 2019
89
Southeast Asia
#17
While it is Wikipedia, it also show the source

Europeans in Medieval China - Wikipedia

It is thought thousands of European live in China during that period.

We know that there are guide books for travelling in China written during that time by Europeans, pretty useless if there is few people travelling there.

We also know that the Medieval Roman church have archbishops in China and India meaning that the Papacy didn't ignore the chance seriously to expand into these area.
 
Mar 2014
1,796
Lithuania
#19
As I said, no more than 50. Your link gives period of several hundred years and mentions 2 merchants in China, do you thing this is benefit for millions of death caused by Mongol Empire? Mongol empire fragmented almost immediately after death of Genghis and split to multiple warring factions. I know it very well, because my country, Lithuania captured Ukraine. So there was no safe route to Europe. Potential merchant would have to cross multiple warring states that raided constantly. Reliable trade with China was established when Europeans sailed there. You can call benefit the fact, that from very few emissaries and priest Europeans knew that it is worth their while to look for sea way to China.
 
Jan 2019
89
Southeast Asia
#20
The Wikipedia article say there are thousands of European living, Genoese community and colony as well as archbishoprics, so the answer is probably too many to name all the merchants living there. The problem is that not all European are Western European, some are Byzantine, other Armenian. What certain is that there is a lot of European living there.


What did Lithuania capturing Ukraine have to do with anything?

Ukraine isn't the only way from Asia to Europe and vice versa.

The better way is through Trebizond and into Mongol controlled Middle East. More developed infrastructure and more secure.

There is also the choice of travelling through the Mediterranean and then go through Egypt and take a sea route to China, but why would they go there if there is no European travelling through the land route and bringing back tales of riches.


Benefit caused by an event is always arguable in history. Colonialism enslave many, but bring technologies to primitive tribes. WW 2 killed millions of people, but afterward many Asian countries managed to get their independence.


I highly doubt that European would be motivated to explore sea routes and built colony, if it not for the Mongol conquest.

There would be no reason to spend resources to travel across an uncertain ocean.
 

Similar History Discussions