mongols

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Alexandre Enkerli: "AA and "subdisciplines" of Anthropology"
• Previous message: Belinda Blinkoff: "CALL FOR GRADUATE PAPERS"

organized into clans and lineages, had *shaman*s, their word, and fought
in *ord*s, they were primitive. From which it follows that the wars they
fought were primitive wars. From which it follows that they did not fight
to hold territories.

To refute the last part first, it suffices to recall the Il-khan rule in
Persian and Mesopotamia, 1258-1335. Also, the Yuan Dynasty in China and
Mongolia, 1275-1368; preceded by the conquest of the North Chinese state of
the Jurched, or Jin Dynasty, from 1215 to 1234 and by the conquest of Nan
Zhao in Southwest China.

Technically, the Mongols were not primitive. They defeated the most
technically advanced civilization, the Chinese, which they encountered
divided into three states. The first, Xixia, was conquered by Jinghis,
who commenced the invasion of the Jin in North China. All three of these
states, especially the Song Empire in the South, were part of the Chinese
civilization-area. The Mongols won because of technical superiority. Which
entailed surpassing the Song, in particular, in naval transport and in
gunpowder-artillery engineering. Both elements entered into the Mongol
victory at Xiangyang, beseiged from 1269 to 1271.

Rethink.

Daniel A. Foss

• Next message: Alexandre Enkerli: "AA and "subdisciplines" of Anthropology"
• Previous message: Belinda Blinkoff: "CALL FOR GRADUATE PAPERS"