The Mongols and their effects on the world

[Faeelin]

As we all know, the Mongols prove that history IS NOT a smooth, predictable path. Nomads emerged out of Asia, rampaged across Asia, and then subsided.

However, they left unimaginable chaos, on a scale not seen again until the 20th century. What long term effects did their conquest have?

 

[unmerged(4953)]

They anihalated Bagdad thus setting the Muslim religion back several years. Perhaps they even created the fundamnetalist views...

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Also, the Mongols destroyed the irrigation system in the Middle East, setting back agriculture to the point that in almost 800 years, it hasn't recovered.

Also, the Mongolian destruction of Kiev made Muscovy/Moscow the preminent city on the Russian steppes, leading to the development of the Russian cultural hearth being located farther east than it likely would have been had Kiev not been leveled by the Mongols.

 

[Suppanut]

They stopped golden age of technology supererity of China and never return and also destroyed the irrigation system of Northern China and Central Asia too,etc .

Most of the Steppe nomads caused the fear that hard to erdicate for all agriculture/urban civilizations that faced them. (As it became a part of their culture,it will take very long time to get rid of it.) I think that they have give their heritages,influence (or even the scars) to whole human (Eurasian for deeper term) culture/civilization more than me or many others can imagine.

 

[Sputnik]

Question, why were they destroying irrigation systems? Was that systematic or collateral damage?

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Most of the old irrigation systems of the middle east were already destroyed(by early arab misrule), but the mongols certainly cleaned up the rest.

However, as WW2 proves, destruction doesn't really have that much of a long-term impact. It's amazing how quickly people can rise again. I suspect the root causes of chinese technological superiority and arab fundamentalism can be found elsewhere.

EF

 

[Aetius]

The mongols invaded once before as the Huns. They had an impact on the Roman Empire devolopment and the movement of the barbarian tribes that lead to its downfall.

 

[unmerged(1196)]

They killed unprecedented numbers of people, in such a small amount of time, a particularly astonishing feat given the relatively limited technology they had. They set China, Central Asia, and the near-East back centuries. Turko-Mongols (Timur the Lame) did the same for South Asia.

The mongols invaded once before as the Huns.

What do you mean? Are you saying that the Huns are the same people as the Mongolians? They may have used similar [Parthian-derived] technology, but that's it AFAIK.

 

[unmerged(7225)]

What do you mean? Are you saying that the Huns are the same people as the Mongolians? They may have used similar [Parthian-derived] technology, but that's it AFAIK.

I think you're each half-right here...

I'm pretty sure that the Huns were Turko-mongolic (or is it mongoloturkic?) peoples. That is, they derive from the same culturo-lingusitic stock as mongolians and turks, though they are probably no more related than, say, any two indoeuropean peoples (such as Hindus and say, the French). Though they came from vaguely the same region in central asia, and may have descended from the same people, the Huns and Mongolians were distinct groups.

 

[unmerged(1196)]

The word you're looking for is "Altaic," not "Turko-Mongol." "Turko-Mongols" implies a mix of a Turkic and a Mongolian culture (Timur the Lame's empire, for instance), that certainly didn't exist when the Huns were conquering Roman lands.

And yes, Altaic is a very broad linguistic group, that shouldn't imply any real genetic, etc. similarity.

 

[unmerged(7225)]

Yeah.. Altaic, that's the word I was looking for. Huns, Turks, and Mongolians were all Altaic (as are, I believe, the Finns and the Estonians) but are still VERY culturally distinct. So while the Huns were closer related to the Mongols than to the Romans, they were still not that closely related to the Mongols...

 

[Dark Knight]

Is there any way of telling what the Huns actually spoke?

Regardless, Mongolian and Turkic languages are Altaic, whereas Finnish, Estonian, and Magyar are Uralic. They're all part of the general Ural-Altaic family, but this linguistic family is as broad as the Indo-European, and no-one would argue a close racial resemblance between an Icelander and someone from central India based on both of them speaking Indo-European languages.