Not sure where to post it as it's history, not today's events, and not science / philosophy either. So putting it here after all.

I find history so damned interesting! Sometimes I don't bother but other times I can spend hours of the day watching historical figures and events on YouTube.
A while back I watched stuff on Hitler & the rise of his world, I posted on that.
Later I watched a lot of the Romans, something that never ceases to intrigue me!
Then later for some reason I got an interest in finding out more about Napoleon. I learnt about him at elementary school, but couldn't really remember much.
I came across something concerning a long, ongoing French occupation of my country that had me thinking, "Huh, the French??"
Of course that was Napoleon, hihi. How could I forget, lol.
But I had no idea how far he'd managed to press on in Russia! I thought he tried, but quickly was defeated due to the winter and a starving army. But no, he went on regardless. All the way direction Moscow.

Today I felt compelled to watch about the Mongolians.
I once read the book on Temujin's life -Genghis Khan- which taught me so much I'd never known before.
And the vastness of their empire, wowza. If it hadn't been for his death I think he would indeed have made it to the Atlantic, which was his goal. Meaning he'd also have defeated the holy Roman Empire, and church.
Imagine how different the world would've been today had that happened. Couldn't the man have waited another 5 yrs? Would've possibly spared us the witch hunt & trials in which lord knows how many were killed.
Would've changed the fate and position of women to this day as well since mostly women were accused and killed.

Mongolians also conquered big parts of the Muslim world, including Bagdad even! So Muslim religion would likely not be what it is today either.

Food for thought for sure when you think about how much chit religion has brought us.

In any case... pretty clear to see when looking back that it is not possible to maintain such a vast empire for a long period of time.
None succeeded, not the Romans, not Napoleon, not the Mongols, and no other.
Everything that was once put together, including Yugoslavia, even Russia etc. didn't last and eventually people fought to get back their original country.

Which makes you wonder... why the hell are they trying to unite the whole of Europe? It won't work, won't last, won't do anyone any good, except for the ones in power that make billions out of it.
But like any country that was conquered and/or merged with another in the past, it will not make people happy to lose their country, their culture, their language, their currency, sovereignty, and so on.

In any case, all interesting to watch and learn at the same time :)

These are all important but small empires when you compare them ... to The British Empire.... remembering "" the sun never set on the Empire""..... the repercussions of which is still felt world wide .... even till to day and into the future..... what cannot be attributed to the British Empire....???
Crystal ... check out the British Raj..... and the impact it had on India and the world ???

Ever wondered how 100,000 Englishmen, half of them civil servants, ruled over 350,000,000 Indians? Initially as East India Company and then under the Crown; and why the English were for a long time welcomed and at home in India? A part that remains - untold in the History of the Empire.

The impact of the British impact is far better known by most since we see that in many movies and series.
India... maybe I will look into it some day, but for some reason I never like India much so it doesn't have my interest.

Numbers don't always mean that much. History has shown that time and again. A very well organised force that is also very well trained, using strategic insight, and has a solid structure of command is far more powerful than a (much) larger group that has none of this. And in most cases the English had superior weapons.
It's also how the Romans managed to conquer so many lands and people that, until they came, were basically undefeated. They had all of the above, incl. the superior weapons & armour, but mostly their strategy that did the trick.

Apart from that both the English and the Romans were generally well fed.

Forgot to say earlier that the Mongols were also one of the first ever to have a marine force, very well trained at that.
Quite something for a country that's surrounded by land everywhere and is very barren. So no innate seafaring or boating.
Kublai created it and used it against the Chinese. Over rivers even. Go figure!
.
.
.
.

the Mughal empire led by Timur the Lame ...conquered most of India and established a dynasty ... they ruled for a century .... and then came the British.....who with their clever , divide and rule plan , managed to establish the greatest Empire ever....and thats how a few Englishmen overcame a few thousand of Indians.... very simple and straight forward . India was the jewel in the British Crown ..... till they parted....

Hahaha,

nice...

Wiki is getting better than Alice in Wonderland.

It's easy to blame "religion," but it still falls on people.
Whether it's Christianity, Shintoism, Paganism, or "follow the science! Listen to the scientists and doctors!"

It's not really religion, imo, it seems to be more of a human trait to look for external authority that allows people to stop thinking and grants permission to simply react emotionally, allowing for immediate gratification or immediate alleviation of whatever "stress" is felt.


Well, back to Genghis Khan, aren't the Mongols believed to be responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people?

Napoleon responsible for millions more in his wars?

And we all know the death tolls for WWI and WWII, at least with a quick bible, err...google search.

After world war two the U.S. and allies decided economic interdependence was the way to go to prevent the massive death tolls from all those wars and invasions and manifest destiny and such. "Spread democracy and capita...err...freedom!"

Can't really nuke the country that provides the materials for your nukes, and you can't nuke the country that grows the food for the country that provides the materials for your nukes, and you can't nuke the country that provides the clothes and the luxuries and the debt and the financing and the protection and the whatever of the country that provides for the country that provides for the country and so on.

Another response was mutually assured destruction. You nuke me, I nuke you, no one wins.

Wars are expensive. They kill a lot of people. Destroy a lot of wealth. And there's no guarantee of winning or surviving.

Or probably more personal, what happens if you and the people you work with just went and murdered your boss and stole all of the boss and company's money on hand, sold all of the assets? Let's say there are no laws and you would receive no legal penalty for doing so.

How do you think company's would respond and protect themselves from that happening to them and how do you think they would then treat you?

How long until other people saw what you had and said to themselves "hey! They did it, why can't we?" and then came after you because it's easier than going after a now protected company? Which could be the case if you decided to just take over the company and run it yourselves.

Is that preferable to cooperating and collaborating with your boss/employer to keep producing something that other people want? Do you want to go to war with your suppliers or customers?

Think of each individual person as their own country.
Is it better to "unify" (i.e. group up and, say, form a stable business), or individually compete and prey upon each other?
Why? There's an answer.


The point is not in making them "happy."
It's keeping them from world war III.
It's keeping people distracted with social media and coca cola, fast food, vacations, consumption and working/producing to keep the status quo.

Were you under the impression people go into politics, or people form governments, or empires were founded and flourished for the sake of tripping peoples "happy" button, that being what is in peoples minds: "how can I make everyone else happy?"

People aren't going to be "happy" at change. But are they going to be upset enough to re-dig the trenches, throw nuclear bombs, send out the mustard gas, tanks, and corona viruses?

It may have been a great empire, but they could not have gotten the amount of land they did -not that much more than the Mongol empire btw and that was the largest contiguous empire ever in existence- if it wasn't for their superior weapons and training.
Basically every country they took had indigenous people that had sufficient arms for life in their culture and country, but NOT fire arms. It's quite easy to flatten an entire people that's basically throwing sticks & stones while you got cannons, rifles, and so on.
Other western countries may have done the same, albeit on a smaller scale, but I don't think this was the case in most other great empires, when the parties concerned were way more equal in weapons. Except for the Romans that is.
So in that sense, taking that into account, was it so great? It was similar to us now having aliens invade Earth with far superior technology and power. In essence not a fair victory, no greatness about it either.
And think of this: the English fought the French for yonks but could never hold the bits & pieces they occasionally conquered there as the French were equal. Same with us, the Dutch. We had a few wars with 'em. When some English dude attacked and raided our VOC ships, plundered our island Texel, we had our very successful revenge! We took out their entire naval fleet, took their Royal Charles flagship with us, hihi.

Just to say that on equal footing they had a tougher time and weren't necessarily victorious.
.
.
.

and with malice towards none!