98 replies to this topic

[Boleslaw I]

You are misreading my quote again. Read it one more time: "In any case, we have no evidence for Mongol control further north of the route. Not that the area has anything to be controlled."

Sorry, and thanks for clarification

Well, for viewing the Mongol, at least we can keep this as personal perspective

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Well, for viewing the Mongol, at least we can keep this as personal perspective

There is no single Mongol Empire after Meng Ge's time, if the four Empires can be considered one, so can China and its tributary vassals. Afterall they are also economically coherent, by the tributary system.

Edited by warhead, 16 August 2007 - 08:28 PM.

[Boleslaw I]

Now get back to British Empire, as I said, after 1902, it could be said that Australia, US and Canada are removed from this empire. Thus the area would be decreased remarkably.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Now get back to British Empire, as I said, after 1902, it could be said that Australia, US and Canada are removed from this empire. Thus the area would be decreased remarkably.

Why did you choose 1902? Thats an odd date of no significance. The US became independent as early as 1776, it has never been part of the estimation. Canada and Australia remained a common wealth in which its foreign policies were controlled by Britain until 1926, in which the Balfour Declaration stated that these commonwealth and Britain were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".

[Boleslaw I]

Why did you choose 1902? Thats an odd date of no significance. The US became independent as early as 1776, it has never been part of the estimation. Canada and Australia remained a common wealth in which its foreign policies were controlled by Britain until 1926, in which the Balfour Declaration stated that these commonwealth and Britain were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".

Area, area, not political relationship

How could it is insgnificant, 1902 is remarkable, since it represents the culmination of Imperialism, following the link about this subject I gave you before.

Edited by Boleslaw I, 17 August 2007 - 12:28 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Area, area, not political relationship

How could it is insgnificant, 1902 is remarkable, since it represents the culmination of Imperialism, following the link about this subject I gave you before.

You haven't answered the question. What event in 1902 makes it so remarkable that you should exclude Canada and Australia from the British Empire?

[Boleslaw I]

You haven't answered the question. What event in 1902 makes it so remarkable that you should exclude Canada and Australia from the British Empire?

- Second Boer War: South African Boers
-May 5 - Commonwealth Public Service Act creates Australia's Public Service.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

and that makes Canada and Australia independent of Britain in what way?

[jebusrocks]

In Korea's point of view, the Tang/Su War against Gorkuryo is probably the largest where a few million Chinese soldiers participated, surpassing all those invasions except the Napoleonic Wars and the Mongolian Conquest

[Tibet Libre]

On the other hand, even dividing their numbers by a factor of 10, the combatant count in many historical wars in China still surpassed those in European history.

IIRC Herodot and Simonides recorded 4 million Persian invaders.

And in naval warfare, where combatant numbers can more accurately established through the recorded numbers of galleys, often more than 100,000 troops and rowers are recorded on each side, for example in first Punic war in the waters of Sicily. I do not see this figures in ancient Chinese historiography, not even in the usually grossly exaggerated form.

Anyway, I would go for the 7 Years Wars which many historians, including Churchill himself, view as the first World War in a true sense when Europe, India, North America and the Caribbean were war theatres.

[Tibet Libre]

A very interesting conflict which is often overlooked is that between the Roman / East Roman Empire and the Parthians / Sassanians which lasted for over 600 years and was easily the most hard fought conflict of antiquity with, ironically, the least border movement! In 632 AD the frontier at the Euphrates differed only little from the one established by Pompey in 62 BC (Roman vassal states in Asia Minor included).

[jebusrocks]

Anyway, I would go for the 7 Years Wars which many historians, including Churchill himself, view as the first World War in a true sense when Europe, India, North America and the Caribbean were war theatres.

I believe the Joseon/Japanese conflict counts as part of the Seven Years' War as well.

[Boleslaw I]

and that makes Canada and Australia independent of Britain in what way?

The second event marked the second step in which Australian seperated their power from British authority. They thus could be considered as an independent state which still maintained a strong relationship with England. By that time, Canada also strengthened their independence and British authority had been weakened since 1867, thus in principal, they were an independent state as well.

About the Mongol maps, you have failed to demonstrate another version of another European country, thus I cannot, in principal, accept such a map as being assumed more accurate. Here is an acceptable map with the area equals to the number I posted before:



Reason, it covered at least minimum territory in Irtych river, as I mentioned. Second, the area it covered was conventionally accepted. Thus, on the eve of WWI, British Empire, with or without Canada and Austrialian territory, is still smaller than the Mongol Empire. Only after the WWI did British Empire expand their terriotry and become the largest empire in human history.

There are no textual or archeological evidence for Mongol involvement that far north, its save to assume that they controlled the silk road in the north shown in this map, which roughly coincides with the above map.

Are you really sure about this? Y/N

Edited by Boleslaw I, 26 August 2007 - 12:12 AM.

[Boleslaw I]

The total area 11.87 million square miles was excluded from the European Hungarian territory that the Mongols attacked in 1240 campaign under the leadership of Batu and Jebe.

[DurstigerMann]

first off, what is "large" to you? Territory, people involved, casualties?

Anyway, I'd go for the Napoleonic Wars, especially for the anti-napoleonic liberation war. It involved massive amounts of men and arms and can be seen as the first conflict in world history that resembled modern warfare.
The Battle of Nations was the largest battle until ww1, involving over 500.000 soldiers with over 50.000 casualties within 3 days.

The other conflict I would vote is the American Civil War. Again, massive amounts of soldiers were fielded and casualties skyrocketed compared to wars before the 19th century. All this within a minimum amount of time.

George F. Kennan described WW1 as "the great seminal catastrophe of this century". New weapons of mass destruction came to use and no longer the gain of land was the most important devise, but the killing of enemy soldiers.
But this wasn't really new. Actually, both conflics I named above foreshadowed the development of military devices and ethics which would lead to the inhuman battleflields of WW1.

Edited by DurstigerMann, 05 September 2007 - 09:59 AM.