What would Western Europe look like if the Mongol Empire never existed?

Status
Closed
Dec 2015
219
NYC
#73
LOL. Now you have mixed your dates up even more & even worse. The Mongol invasions only started in later 13th century. The Renaissance occurred around mid 12th century, i. e. more than 100 years earlier.

Dude. You are losing the plot all over the place & all around you now.:cool:
The Italian Renaissance started 1420. The Mongol Empire started 1206. Fighting over dates doesn't change the fact that Mongols pulled Western Europe ahead and put the Chinese, Indian and Middle Eastern civilizations a path to stagnation. Deal with it :p
 
Dec 2015
219
NYC
#74
Except neither the Xinhai nor the Taiping had majority support. Zuo Zongtang crushed the later by portraying it as the enemy of Chinese civilization, and the Qing represented the proper Chinese world order. The former literally had to force the masses to cut off their queue after overthrowing the Qing as I've already demonstrated.
Majority support or not, the events still clearly shows that many Han Chinese were starting to get tired of the Qing and the Manchu. In fact, we can look back futher when the Manchu first started taking over, many Chinese resisted the Queue.
The Chinese in the Liaodong Peninsula rebelled in 1622 and 1625 in response to the implementation of the mandatory hairstyle. In 1645, the enforcement of the queue order was taken a step further by the ruling Manchus when it was decreed that any man who did not adopt the Manchu hairstyle within ten days would be executed.
And since we are using intellectuals here, I can bring up Lu Xun, a Chinese intellectual who summed up the Chinese reaction to the implementation of the mandatory Manchu hairstyle by stating, "In fact, the Chinese people in those days revolted not because the country was on the verge of ruin, but because they had to wear queues."


This has nothing to do with the fact that the Manchus are not the Mongols and that they did have popular support during their rule. Why you think the Xinhai revolutionaries represents all the Han people is beyond me, especially when I've already demonstrated that the masses had no enthusiasm for the revolution and didn't want to cut off their queue.
Again with the Manchu and Mongol BS. I could care less if they were the same or not. Fact is they were both foreigners (regardless if Manchus were more 'assimilated' or not) and never truly respected the Han majority. Originally, both were seen as barbarians (and only when the Manchu started assimilating to Han culture where they were seen as Han) and imposed different foreign aspects to the Han majority.


You said the Han were getting tired of the Manchus and used Xinhai revolutionaries writing as proves. These very writings are written by intellectuals, not the masses. On the other hand much of the rural masses refused to cut off their queue, showing that they viewed the queue as part of their Chinese identity. In another words you selectively chose the perspectives of Xinhai revolutionary writings over Qing official writings, and also over the actions of the masses.
As time went on, and the Queue being mandatory, the rural masses had no choice but to view the Queue as part of their identity.
 
Dec 2015
219
NYC
#75
I doubt he knew about either of these renaissances until they were brought up in the thread. Otherwise, he would not have clung on to the fallacy of the "dark ages" or medieval stagnation.
I heard the two names before, but ignored them because they were not significant. If they were really significant and more well known as the Italian Renaissance, I wouldn't ignore them/ Again, they were specific and pathetic attempts to bring Western Europe out of it's stagnation and the utter chaos, and only brought chunks of Greco-Roman knowledge, and still did nothing for the vast majority of Europe. Why can't you accept the fact that non-Western European civilizations were ahead of Western Europe during those times prior to being dismantled by Mongol invasions.
 
Dec 2015
219
NYC
#76
What is a ''larger scale'' according to you?
Don't kid me or yourself. "Large scale" as in the intellectual flowering of the Middle Ages. The true revival of Greco-Roman knowledge and civilization to Western Europe. It included social, political and economic transformations, and an intellectual revitalization of Western Europe with strong philosophical and scientific roots. This was the real Renaissance that paved the way for the scientific revolution, the French revolution, the Industrial revolution, etc. This was the event that spread Greco-Roman knowledge all over Europe.

This has been refuted repeatably in this thread but you seem to ignore it. Now that you have been pointed to the renaissances and the developments of the High Middle Ages you claim that ''Yes, they were real and important but.... there was no explosion of cultural, artistic, scholarly and educational advancements. The things that came out of Western Europe were minuscule compared to... '' This is the No True Scotsman part, just because these ages don't meet your imaginary standard of progress (Or maybe they do and you're just shifting definitions.) doesn't mean that Europe was in stagnation or that nothing came out of it. You asked for important individuals of the Carolingian renaissance, I provided you with 3 writers and scholars, are you now going to discredit literature as a whole as unimportant just because it goes against your narrative of nothing important happening? As for Islamic Iberia: Last time I looked at a map it was a part of South-Western Europe, should we disregard basic geography now?
Western Europe was in the 'dark ages', period. A time of constant migrations of tribes, rural poverty, a time of feudalism, a time when religion played a role in every aspect of a persons life and were forced to learn what the church was preaching. A bunch of art, architecture and literature that came out of two 'renaissance' events didn't even pull Western Europe out of it's stagnation and the utter mess that plagued Western Europe at that time. The Italian renaissance was the real 'explosion' of Greco-Roman knowledge to Western Europe and beyond. And about Islamic Iberia, again [headslap]..., they were part of the Islamic world, the contributions that came out Islamic Spain is associated with the Islamic world, not Christian Europe.


Re-read the rest of this thread.
Yes, re-read the already derailed thread about two renaissance events that somehow made Western Europe a center of civilization alongside the Islamic world, the kingdoms of China and India while the catholic church was still burning books and killing people accused of being heretics.
I might as well read again, how Manchu and Mongol are both not the same, despite both being foreigners who stifled scientific and technological advancements while imposing different customs and unfavorable laws on the majority Han.
How about the Napoleonic Wars, which have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Still, France was a world power alongside Britain who influenced the modern world alongside Britain?


I'm referring to Sweden, the whole paragraph was about Sweden so I don't know why you thought of France. If you knew who those individuals I mentioned are you wouldn't ask me such a question.
What about Sweden? That they won a bunch of wars. Good for them. What major events came from Sweden? How did Sweden influence the modern world like Britain and France did?


I was referring to the Habsburg Monarchy as a whole, not just Austria-Hungary. Out of their nigh-500 years of great power status you only look at the ''later years'' (I.E. 1860s onwards.) and disregard the rest of their great power period, is it because it goes against your narrative yet again?
I thought you were talking mainly about Austra-Hungary, not Austra as a whole including the Habsburg Monarchy. As I stated before, they were indeed a European power, but not a world power at that time like Britain and France.

No True Scotsman again, just because they ''weren't anything as significant'' according to your strange standards doesn't mean that they ''didn't produce anything major''.
Not my 'strange standard'. According to Eurocentric standards who considered the Italian renaissance as being the most important. If the carolingian renaissance were so important, they would be just as mentioned as the Italian Renaissance and we wouldn't hear only the Italian Renaissance over and over again in popular culture.


It very much does. You brought up the Dark Ages and stagnation in the OP, people have argued this and refuted it. Not to mention that you have got your chronology wrong and claimed that the 12th century and the Carolingian renaissances were centuries after the Mongol invasions.
In fact, the Mongol Empire did happen before the Italian Renaissance and the Italian Renaissance happened just before the Mongol Empire was about to end. Yes, people saying their wasn't no stagnation in Western Europe when there, in reality, was stagnation, no matter how much people either try to deny it or act like the Western Europe during the middle ages were flourishing areas like the Middle East, China and India during those times. Progress was slow, and much of Western Europe at that time was going through migration periods, de-urbanization, high illiteracy rates, churches still being in control of education and stifling scientific inquiry, etc... (oh and especially the black death, which had it worst for Europe than elsewhere)
 
Dec 2015
219
NYC
#77
All of which totally refutes the idea of a "dark ages" in Europe, especially one caused by Mongols.
Two 'renaissance' events that failed to make Western Europe on par, or ahead of the three major areas during those times, and those were: the Islamic world, the Kingdoms of China and India. And failed to clean up the bad infrastructure, the high de-urbanization, the high illiteracy rates, the migration of Germanic tribes all around Western Europe and the church still burning books and killing anyone accused of being heretics.
 
Dec 2015
219
NYC
#78
Let's be honest ya'll. If it weren't for the Mongols, Europe wouldn't have such a head start in becoming the main world power in the modern era. If the Mongols didn't invade, the major centers of the Islamic World or China or India would never have fallin and later on be ruled by oppressive empires/dynasties who stagnated behind in science and technology and implementing harsh laws and customs on their subjects.
 
Mar 2012
4,404
#79
Majority support or not, the events still clearly shows that many Han Chinese were starting to get tired of the Qing and the Manchu. In fact, we can look back futher when the Manchu first started taking over, many Chinese resisted the Queue.
The Chinese in the Liaodong Peninsula rebelled in 1622 and 1625 in response to the implementation of the mandatory hairstyle. In 1645, the enforcement of the queue order was taken a step further by the ruling Manchus when it was decreed that any man who did not adopt the Manchu hairstyle within ten days would be executed.
And since we are using intellectuals here, I can bring up Lu Xun, a Chinese intellectual who summed up the Chinese reaction to the implementation of the mandatory Manchu hairstyle by stating, "In fact, the Chinese people in those days revolted not because the country was on the verge of ruin, but because they had to wear queues."
What is your point exactly? This argument started when you said Mongols were Manchus and used the idea that the Chinese population opposed both to prove that they are related, I am merely pointing out that saying the Chinese population opposed them is a gross generalization and it was because there are clearly lots of Chinese, probably the majority, who didn't. Early Qing is also very different from late Qing; people started accepting the queue by the mid-Qing and made it part of their Chinese identity; don't lump different periods together.


Again with the Manchu and Mongol BS. I could care less if they were the same or not. Fact is they were both foreigners (regardless if Manchus were more 'assimilated' or not) and never truly respected the Han majority. Originally, both were seen as barbarians (and only when the Manchu started assimilating to Han culture where they were seen as Han) and imposed different foreign aspects to the Han majority.
You started the BS, you can end it by admitting you are wrong.


As time went on, and the Queue being mandatory, the rural masses had no choice but to view the Queue as part of their identity.
You are not catching the fact that they refused to cut it off even after the Qing collapsed are you? Meaning they eventually voluntarily adopted it as part of their identity.
 
Sep 2016
544
天下
#80
Their still originally barbarians before the Qing. Deal with it.
Ffs mate, your original claim wasn't about being barbarians or not, but that are related to Mongols. You are they guy that can't deal with being proved wrong again and again, so you either strawman by changing the topic, or disregard the evidence presented to you.


I don't need to. The fact that their weapons were outdated compared to Western European imperialists show how the Qing supressed technological and scientific advancements
Do you have some problem? We were talking about YUAN, MONGOLS of 13TH and 14th century. What QING, MANCHUS of 17TH TO 20TH century have anything to do with the discussion?
 
Status
Closed