The arabs were broken into smaller kingdoms for a long time when it came to the XIII century. The Eastern Roman Empire had been in decline since the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and even before that it was only a regional power. Compared to those, the mongols managed to build an empire spreading on millions of square kilometers. There is no base for comparison. It is like comparing the UK and the US 20 years after WWII.

▲

cm2012 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mongolian empire was so large because it is cheap to run an extractive regime

	▲	gostsamo 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Disliking them doesn't make their empire smaller and success is a virtue of its own according to many. They were successful and people noticed, the rest is commentary.

▲

jmyeet 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So this is a fallacy of seeing historical events through a modern lens.

We know how far the Mongols spread and we have accurate maps but in no way am I convinced that France could possibly conceive of the size and scope of Central Asia in the 11th century.

	▲	gostsamo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They could conceive that you can go across France in a couple of weeks and that you might need a few months to reach China. What's more, they could see how rich the khan is and that it is much more than their king. And that he has much bigger army. Surprisingly, they were not idiots.

▲

sleepyguy 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	gostsamo 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They also smelled and had a big rich empire. What I can say? Won't bother you with the guy who supposedly planted trees so that merchants can travel and rest in their shadows, nor should I tell you stories how those extractive people facilitated trade between Europe and China. PS: The russians got lots of things from the eastern roman empire, just not the humanistic renaissance, but let's not go there.