Similarities of the Mongolian and Macedonian Conquest and Empire

To much of the surprise of the Western world, the Mongol Empire expanded rapidly, both through use of brutality and tolerance. The Mongols were aggressive in battle, unlike the world had previously seen (Mongols in World History 1). They utilized novel military strategy and maintained heightened standards of skill and training. By these means, as well as psychological warfare which induced terror among those they conquered, the Mongols were able to spread rapidly, so much so that their conquest initiated the first direct contact between Europe and Eastern Asia.

Their military skill proved advantageous in the spread of their Empire, but the practice of tolerance, which anteceded their vicious brutality, often was the driving source of stability of their newly conquered lands. They assimilated well with other cultures and practiced both religious and cultural tolerance, which encouraged a mutually responsive and accepted relationship between the Mongols and newly conquered people (Mongols in World History 6). Such cohesiveness allowed their exaggerated expansion sustainable for the time of their rule.

Much like the Mongols, the Macedonians practiced brutality in conquering, but were also somewhat tolerant of local religions and customs. From a military perspective, the Macedonians were skilled and maintained technically abled fighting forces. Advanced skills and military innovations, such as the Macedonian phalanx and Torsion catapults, improved their ability in conquest quickly, allowing Alexander the Great to control one of the largest empires the world had yet seen. In respect to the tolerance practiced by Alexander the Great during his conquest, Alexander encouraged a “bicultural future” in which Macedonians were encouraged to adopt customs of those they had conquered (Demand 314). This helped to blend cultures and to ease the acquisition of power and maintenance of stability. He practiced “shared administration” and allowed those he had conquered, including the Persians, to be integrated into his Macedonian army (Demand 314). As well, Alexander went so far as to adopt certain dress and customs expected of rulers of his conquered lands in order to emphasize the legitimacy of his new authority.

Both the Mongol and Macedonian Empires practiced mutual cultural assimilation in order to encourage cohesion and stability of their newly conquered lands. While this tolerance is certainly unexpected to follow such vicious, military brutality, both of these peoples were able to successfully conquer new lands in an unprecedented, aggressive fashion, and then transition to a more positive and responsive culture.

-Meagan Stevenson

Sources: The Mongols in World History, p. 1-6 transcript of the text found at <http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols>

Demand, Chapter 15, Alexander the Great, p. 314

*Sources can be found in class reading syllabus.

Christianity: Defying the Odds

While there is widespread acceptance of Christianity in the contemporary context, particularly so in western society, this was definitively not always the case. Since its inception, Christianity has fought for centuries against odds stacked overwhelmingly against its favor. At a critical moment in the history of the west, Constantine the Great assumed command of the Roman Empire, and his radical support of Christianity enabled the basis for evangelization across the Roman Empire.

Policies enacted by Constantine relieved the prior pressure of persecution exerted on Christians forming a conduit through which missionaries could facilitate the spread of the religion. It was the nature of Christian religious doctrine, however, that enabled Christianity to take root in the early 300s AD. In large part this success was due to the Christians’ ability to utilize preexisting social institutions to promote monotheistic ideals, primarily in its appeal to lower classes in its salvation doctrine.

This aspect of utilizing preexisting social institutions to propagate a religious agenda was preciously the strategy of Julian the Apostate in his crusade to both revitalize paganism across the Roman Empire and discredit Christianity. Julian took a “three prong” approach towards disenfranchising Christianity. Attempting to first use legislation to discriminate against Christians thereby isolating them, he would then proactively approach disenfranchisement through mirroring the preexisting Christian structure of churches in his creation of a pagan church system [1]. Finally, he mounted a “philosophical assault” on Christianity to fundamentally undermine its religious doctrine.

In a stroke of luck, Christianity survived narrowly such a hostile and concerted effort to eradicate the religion. The immense proliferation of the religion under Constantine was as unforeseen as it was statistically improbable.

Today, Julian the Apostate is generally viewed in the context of the predominantly protestant narrative if western society, casting a light on his as a manic, Christian-hater. It’s important to note, however, that he was viewed by his contemporaries in an overall positive light, as most were pagans themselves. Paganism was representative of Hellenistic heritage, enabling Julian’s campaigns to revive Paganism to garner a nostalgic and “romantic appeal.”

So how did Christianity make its narrow escape from its seemingly inevitable extinction? While paganism is a largely individualistic religion, Christianity has a need to share the faith built into its core. Julian elitism is also to blame for the failure of paganism as it postulated that only the elite could possibly comprehend religious doctrine. In light of these shortcomings on the part of Julian as well as his untimely death, Christianity was afforded the opportunity to defy the odds and survive eradication. Through the nature of the religion itself and the tactful policy making of Constantine the Great, Christianity capitalized on this opportunity of survival and rose to dominance in the west.

–Julia Lotterer

Word Count: 503

Sources:

[1] https://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm

[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/julian-and-the-fall-of-paganism-119349

History’s Darkest Times

April 1, 2019 | Blog 5

In a few years, one man orchestrated the deaths of millions of men, women, and children across Europe, Asia, and Africa.

This man was Adolf Hitler.

If you were thinking of Genghis Khan, you’re not wrong. But, I’ll save him for later comparison.

From the rise to fall of Nazi Germany (1933-1945) under the Führer, the Nazis murdered millions across Europe for reasons concerning race, religion, handicap, sexual preference, and politics. Annually, the Nazis killed six to seven people out of every hundred in occupied Europe. The odds of a European dying under Nazi occupation were about one in fifteen.

How did this all start?

Adolf Hitler blamed the loss of World War I and German economic depression on Jewish capitalism. As World War II broke out, Jews fell victim to Germany’s policies of oppression and extermination.

Jews were not the only ones who were victim to Nazi Germany’s ruthlessness. Those of other races and religions were targeted as well. Political opponents were eliminated, and “undesirables” were euthanized.

However, German occupation was also distinguished by tolerance for those who were compliant. A brilliant example of such tolerance was in the occupation of Denmark (1940 to 1945). The Danish government immediately cooperated with the Germans, as it wanted to preserve Denmark while accommodating the wishes of the Germans.

Most Danes, as a result, were able to continue their daily lives much as before occupation. Although there were shortages of certain goods in Denmark, the Danes had one of the highest standards of living in Europe during the war years.

How is Nazi Germany so similar to the Mongol Empire? Similar to how Nazi Germany spread rapidly through blitzkrieg, the Mongol Empire expanded through the success of skillful military leaders. The Mongols relied on their archery cavalry, and this led to the empire, at the peak of its power, to be almost six times larger than Nazi Germany.

If the Mongols’ goal was to be the most brutal people ever to walk on this planet, they succeeded. Almost wiping out 10% of the world’s population, the Mongol armies decimated cities and used captives as sacrificial lambs. Historians estimate the death toll to be nearly 40 million people, double the number Nazi Germany so proudly boasted.

“They came, they sapped, they burnt, they slew, they plundered, and they departed,” Persian historian Ata-Malik Juvayni recollected bluntly during the Mongol invasion of Central Asia.

While crueler, the Mongols were still more tolerant than the Nazis. Those who submitted to the Mongols enjoyed a fearless life while only paying taxes. The Mongols held a high tolerance for other religions and cultures. In fact, the Mongols were so successful due to their ability to assimilate and adapt to different cultures.

During the Pax Mongolica, the Mongols promoted interstate relations and provided travel and protection for artisans and merchants. The Mongols even recognized the importance of trade, resulting in tax breaks for traders.

Examining the Mongols and Germans side-by-side, we recognize striking similarities in regards to extreme brutality and surprising tolerance. Hitler’s Nazi Germany is well known for its slaughter of millions in an attempt to provide living space for their superior race, while the Mongols left a path of destruction as Genghis Khan led his armies far across Asia into Europe and the Middle East. Both leaders’ iron fists on conquered territories relaxed, allowing religion, culture, and trade to develop and flourish.

Nonetheless, the reigns of Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler left dark stains on the tapestry of human history, and we as people of the modern times can hopefully learn some lessons about the past to not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

— Cameron Guan

Word Count: 595

Sources:

Quote by Ata-Malik Juvayni on Mongol invasion of Transoxania (c. 1219)

Confucianism: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Ideally, Utopian societies succeed. Everything works as it should, a perfect world. However, very rarely do those theories that ought to be successful come to fruition. Oftentimes, some small error causes great ideas to fail. Confucianism and the rule of scholars shows that sometimes good ideas work out and sometimes it is too good to be true.

Staffing a bureaucracy with scholars works because the intellectuals are put in charge. These people study their entire lives. They learn about history to prevent history from repeating itself. Confucianism included passing down lessons from generation to generation. This ensured that knowledge was less likely to be lost. Confucianism also stabilized the government. The Han Dynasty especially used it to maintain control over their empire. It allowed for levelheaded leaders to think through what should be done for the good of China. Putting educated scholars in charge allowed for emotion to be removed from the decision-making process. One of the teachings of Confucius states “To govern simply by statute, and to reduce all to order by means of pains and penalties, is to render the people evasive, and devoid of any sense of shame” (Confucius Book 2). This reveals how they could make clear and level decisions that were for the best of the people. Scholars could analyze what exactly had happened in similar events in the past, what course of action was taken, and how it affected the outcome. They decided what worked and what did not work. Thus improving decision making and bringing about stability.

On the flip side, putting scholars in charge of the government possessed its downsides. Ideally, scholars made the best decisions, but in actuality it’s impossible. Just like communism, it might look good, but in practicality it will not work. Scholars do not always understand what is really occurring in the world. They assume that an idea works because it worked in the past, but no two situations are the same. They might rely only on past knowledge and forget that changes have occurred in technology. Or they might rely on events to happen in a certain manner where fate has a different idea. Another of Cunfucius’ stories states “Let a leader,” said he, “show rectitude in his own personal character, and even without directions from him things will go well. If he be not personally upright, his directions will not be complied with” (Confucius Book 13). This proves how wrong some of the ideas could be, even though they theoretically should work. Scholars often remain distant and disjointed from society. This prevents them from accurately having a grip on the full scenario of what may be occurring in their society.

The Supreme Court proves to be a scholar-run bureaucracy in today’s world. Nine justices serve life terms to forge the path for better decision-making in the U.S. The justices hear court cases that they deem to have a large impact on the nation. They also interpret the Constitution to the best of their abilities and clarify meanings for future use. In this manner, the scholar-run bureaucracy works because the Supreme Court is the least powerful of the three branches of government. While they retain the power to interpret the constitution and label policies as unconstitutional, they cannot take on an aggressive role in society. By limiting their power, this form of Confucianism functions well without becoming corrupt.

-Moira Camacho

Word Count: 490

The Analects of Confucius – Book 2, www.confucius-1.com/analects/analects-2.html.

The Analects of Confucius – Book 13, http://www.confucius-1.com/analects/analects-13.html.

The Conquerors

Every so often over the course of history, an exceptional leader blindingly outshines his fellow men and undertakes a course of action that leaves a permanent imprint upon the future. Two such men that will never be forgotten are Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan themselves. The men, swaths of land, and resources these men trampled underfoot and held in the palm of their hand have very few if any times been matched. Both conquerors and their empires exemplified similar levels of brutality and tolerance, and though both failed to last, they both exemplified some of the greatest single-handed conquests and birthings of empires in history.

Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan come from very different backgrounds. Being born to King Philip of Macedon, Alexander had a somewhat better start to his empire. As Alexander rode over Persia and Asia, not only did he allow local populaces to retain their culture and religion, he even adopted practices of the people he encountered, much to the chagrin of his own. Similarly, Genghis Khan was relatively tolerant of any culture that his conquest encountered, his people even adopting and integrating into their own other cultures’ practices as they spread across Asia. Both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan’s empires ruled firmly but made plenty of allowances for the original values of the cultures they subjugated.

While both empires displayed relative tolerance in certain cases, when met with resistance, neither regime faltered when it came to responding with far greater murderous ferocity than their enemy. Alexander the Great himself, during the siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre, he reportedly crucified more than 2,000 survivors on the beach and selling 30,000 more into slavery, not to mention the 6,000 battle casualties.

Though Alexander was brutal, brutality cannot be matched when it comes to the inhumanity of the Mongols. A rare survivor, Ibn al-Althir describes in great detail the atrocities the infamous Mongol hordes committed while on rampage across the entirety of Asia. The Mongols “spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes.”¹ From the perspective of the conquered, the Mongols appeared to have no morals, “and regard nothing as unlawful, for they eat all beasts…, nor do they recognize the marriage-tie,”² furthering their countenance as other-worldly. When it comes to sheer atrocity, both conquerors vie for a strong case, but the Mongol hordes beat out Alexander the Great’s army every time.

As if history repeats itself, we constantly see certain individuals in history transcend their fellows and become a driving force behind a cause that is perpetuated by their followers. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan both exemplify such an individual with their charisma and pure leadership capability. In terms of the characteristics of the empires, both offered relative independence for those who acknowledged their superiority, but when met with intransigence, the consequences for the perpetrators were bore from extreme obduracy, mercilessness, and pure barbarism. Such men above the rest must be acknowledged and learned from.

—Gregory Mathias
Word Count: 506

^{1, 2}Al-Althir, Ibn. The Perfect History. 1225

Is the Navy Actually a Confucian Bureaucracy???

The Confucian bureaucratic system of giving prestigious positions to those that score well on Confucian literacy tests is actually quite similar to the process by which the United States military conducts promotions and job placement. Both systems are overall quite successful in offering the best jobs to the best candidates, but they differ across a few fundamental principles. In one of his books The Analects, Confucius urges a young student to “Collect much information, put aside what is doubtful, repeat cautiously the rest; then you will seldom say what is wrong…With few mistakes in what you say and few regrets for what you do, your career is made.”^[1] Confucianism heavily stressed the power and necessity of knowledge for those in positions of power. This was made evident by the literacy exams that tested potential candidates’ knowledge on the books of Confucianism, and the higher someone scored on these exams the better their chances of holding a position. This system would work nicely in a perfect world where everyone had equal opportunity to study Confucian literature, but as Welty points out, “most Chinese, by reason of poverty, were unable to learn Confucian literature,” therefore those in the higher social classes had an advantage when it came to studying for these literacy exams.^[2] In practice, the Confucian system successfully ensured that public office holders were very knowledgeable and competent, but the advantage was clearly held by those who could afford to study for such exams.

I believe that the United States military uses a new and improved Confucian bureaucratic approach to promotion and job placement. The standard procedure for advancement in the military, specifically the Navy, is to study certain material about your job and be tested on that material in the same way Confucius believed in. Sailors take these advancement tests and apply for promotion, and as it turns out those that score higher have a better chance of being promoted in that application cycle. All of this is nearly identical to the Confucian system. The fundamental difference in the traditional Confucian system and the modern American military is that the American military not only stresses the importance of knowledge but also the need for a strong and competent leadership ability in its service members. When being considered for promotion, Sailors are evaluated for how they have led in the past and how their past experiences have shaped who they are. This ensures that Sailors are not just knowledgeable but also competent leaders. The other benefit of the military is that you do not have to worry about everyone having an equal opportunity for advancement. Those at the same level make the same amount of money and have the same benefits, so when it’s time to be considered for promotion, no one has an unfair advantage over someone else in regards to preparing for advancement exams. The Confucian bureaucracy is great in theory, but the American military has instituted a similar, more refined system that is more fair and practical.

Andrew Mitchell

Word Count: 512

^[1] Confucious- The Analects

^[2] Paul Thomas Welty- The Asians: Their Heritage and Their Dynasty

Mongols and Nazis

An expansive and feared regime led by one man whose charisma and leadership united a nation and created a world power known by all. This statement applies to several countries throughout history, but two in particular come to mind. First is the Mongol Empire which reigned throughout Asia for roughly 200 years from 1200-1400. The Mongolian empire was unified under the influence of Genghis Khan who radicalized the military and the technology that they used creating an environment which allowed for the rapid expansion of the empire. The brutality of the Mongolians was also well known. As described in The Perfect History by Ibn al-athir the Mongol hordes were more fearsome than the antichrist himself. Al-athir states that “…these spared none, slaying men and women and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babies”.[1] This description strikes fear and because it came from a direct victim of the attack, it is clear to see that the idea of the Mongol empire created a sense of psychological warfare, which only strengthened the fear of the Mongols and the therefore the success of Mongolian attacks. The Mongols were such a fear-inducing group of people that even al-athir claims that the events are “so horrible that I shrank from ever recording it”.[2] Unlike prior empires, the Mongols relied on fear as a primary means of expansion and control. This is similar to the fear that the Nazis in 1940s Germany used to control certain populations and peoples.

One of Adolf Hitler’s characteristics that helped him rise to power was his charm and ability to unite people. This is much like Genghis Khan who’s ability to unite an entire nation together was a powerful tool that led to the strength of the Mongols. Much like the Mongols, the Nazis believed that those who did not stand with them, were standing against them and must be eliminated. For the Nazis, the main opponent who they viewed as being against them was the Jewish. Hitler promoted the Jews as the cause of all of Germany’s problems which created a hostile environment for them to live in. Because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, a similar environment of fear was created for many people other than Jews. People became fearful of speaking out against the Nazis because those that did disappeared. Much like the Mongols, Nazis used this fear as a means of expansion and because of that a small Nazi empire was created throughout Europe. Even to this day, many of the crimes that the Nazis partook in are not believed by some because it is difficult to believe something so terrible could occur. This is nearly identical to some of the statements made by al-athir about how he struggled to have the heart to write about what the Mongols did.

-Brett Eckert

Word Count: 482

[1] A Perfect History, Google Drive folder

[2] Ibid

The British and Mongolian Empires

When we think of the British, we often think of adjectives such as “proper” and “civilized”, but the British Empire was far from that. Despite being the root of much of modern civilization, including the United States, the British Empire founded itself on principles of oppression, racism, and cruelty, similar to those of the Mongolian Empire.

For example, the British Empire began with relatively innocent exploration and the desire to discover more of the world, but this soon led to domination over lands explored. Beginning with the Caribbean, the British established a plantation economy of sugar cane, which relied heavily on slaves from Africa, many of whom died simply from brutal conditions during transit.[1] Slave labor was quick to spread to the Americas, where they continued to experience abuse and inhumane treatment. Despite the outlaw of the slave trade in Britain in 1807, its horrendous effects are analogous to those of the Mongolian Empire and their senseless “slaying of women and men and children”[2]. Much like the Mongol treatment of the Chinese, Arabs, and Indians, the British employed a system of controlled aggression in which they supported those they conquered, with the caveat that they offer unconditional support to the crown.

Similarly, the British and Mongolian Empires spawned the two largest empires in history. Accomplishing such a feat is no easy task, and each was able to do so through sheer brutality and control over those they came across. An example of this in the British Empire was their assertion of power over the indigenous people of North America. Their treatment of Native Americans was similar to that of Africans in that they aimed “’to compel them to “drudgery, work, and slavery,’ so English colonists could live ‘like Soldiers upon the fruit of their labor.’”[3] These malignant practices are identical to the Mongol practices in China, “destroying them [villages] and slaying most their inhabitants, of whom none escaped save a small remnant.”[4] Despite existing several hundred years apart, the actions by each empire clearly demonstrate the foundation of violence used to establish power.

At a first glance, it may not seem like the British Empire is even remotely comparable to the Mongolian Empire, but they share many commonalities such as use of oppression and violence. In the modern era, we often completely neglect the wrongdoings of the British Empire, and think only of atrocities committed by regimes like Mongolian Empire and other authoritarian regimes. However, despite all effort to disregard wrongdoings of Western countries like Britain, we cannot not forget the negative impact it had on millions of people around the world.

— Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 456

[1] http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/colonial/indians/

[2] Class Google Folder, Frameworks Crisis of Mongol Age: 1200 to 1400

[3] http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/colonial/indians/

[4] Class Google Folder, Frameworks Crisis of Mongol Age: 1200 to 1400

Was Christianity Inevitable?

Mankind has, for its entire existence, found a higher power to look up to and deem responsible for the workings of the universe that they do not understand. From ancient tribal people worshiping the sun and the rain, to the Greeks and Romans worshiping gods and goddesses with more human visages, religion has permeated and defined every culture. In the last two thousand years, one religion has risen above the rest and maintained power across the world. Christianity is the religion of our world and dozens of generations that have come before us; but how did this happen? What caused a simple splinter group of Jews to build a religion that was, and still is, so powerful was the workings of Constantine, the great Roman Emperor.

Christianity began through the work of Jesus of Nazareth, whose story as the Son of God is universally known. The religion itself, however, was an immensely complicated subject for the Roman Empire for many years, as persecution by the Jews and other religious groups was rampant. This went on until Constantine battled Maximinus at the Battle of Milvian Bridge.[1] From this battle came two very important events. First was when “in [Constantine’s] sleep the Christ of God appeared to him,” and told him that he would win if he fought under the banner of Chi Rho, the symbol of Christianity and Jesus.[2] Second was Constantine’s victory, which allowed him to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. This event, this simple battle at the Melvian Bridge, was the most important moment for Christianity. If Constantine had lost or been killed in the battle, Christianity very well could have fizzled out like so many other religions before and after it. This crucial historical event drastically changed the future of the world, but Constantine did not end his campaign there. Due to the events that transpired in his dreams, he converted to Christianity and began to promote it across the Empire.[3] His most notable action in this regard was his Edict of Milan, passed in 313 AD, that stated that anyone “who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation.”[4] This made Christianity into an official religion of the Roman Empire, an effort to end the persecution of Christians by the Jews and other religious groups. Constantine also incentivized the conversion of the populace to Christianity, providing tax breaks to farmers and other groups and giving soldiers Sundays off.

Constantine’s interesting story and efforts throughout his rule as Emperor were absolutely instrumental in the success of Christianity in both the short and long run. Without his actions, Christianity surely would have disappeared into the mist. It seems that this fact is overlooked in the history books, but he was the most influential instrument in the dominance of Christianity in the Roman Empire and beyond. Christianity was not inevitable; it grew through hard work and the power of the throne.

– Cyrus Malek-Madani

Word Count: 505

[1] “The Battle of the Milvian Bridge.” History Today. Accessed March 31, 2019. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/battle-milvian-bridge.

[2] Eusebius: The Conversion of Constantine. Chapter XXIX.

[3] “The Battle of the Milvian Bridge.” History Today.

[4] The Edict of Milan.

Rise of Empires

The Mongol Empire rose out of northern Asia and quickly took control a majority of Asia, Eastern Europe, and began to push into Western Europe before internal strife forced the Mongols to retreat and eventually brought an end to the empire. Genghis Khan conquered the Mongolian tribes and united them under his banner. They then marched throughout Asia conquering as they went, becoming known for their brutality. The Mongols nomadic lifestyle allowed their forces to mobile. Whatever the Mongols needed they brought with them. In The Perfect History, Ibn al-Athir stated, “…they needed no commissariat, nor the conveyance of supplies, for they have with them sheep, cows, horses and the like quadrupeds, the flesh of which they eat, and naught else.” This allowed them to be fast and not impeded by the need for supplies. They conquered swiftly and it was a surprise to many of their enemies. The Mongols built a vast empire, the largest the world had ever seen, in the blink of an eye.

Nazi Germany did something similar in the mid 20th century. At the end of World War I, Germany was decimated economically and left without a military by the Treaty of Versailles. Socially and politically, Germany was left in disarray and many Germans did not know what to do. This instability allowed Adolf Hitler to seize power and plunge the world back into war. Hitler re-established Germany as a military power and used his political power to unite Germany. He conquered the lands surrounding Germany to reunite the German speaking peoples of Europe and then began his conquest of Europe by invading Poland. However, Nazi Germany did so through a new method of warfare called the Blitzkrieg or lightning war. Blitzkrieg was intended to attack and subdue the enemy before they could organize and respond. This relied heavily on German tanks to punch through enemy lines and cause disorder. This can be compared to the Mongols who fought adeptly on horseback. The Mongols could strike fast by riding in on horseback and cause mass disarray, ending the battle swiftly and moving on with their conquests. Nazi Germany conquered and built an empire spanning most of the European mainland in the blink of an eye. However, the German strategy of Blitzkrieg eventually degraded as they got bogged down in Russia and their advance was stalled on both fronts. The fall of the German empire was as swift as its rise. However, it was not due to internal strife, but due to their inability to keep their supply lines intact and a general lack of resources as Germany began to crumble under the intense pressure placed on them by the allies.

The Mongols were able to conquer and hold territory because they used their nomadic lifestyle to their advantage. There had no supply lines their enemies could target so it was impossible to subdue them indirectly. To defeat the Mongols, one had to face them head on in combat and the Mongols were as much warriors as they were brutal. It seemed the only force capable of stopping the Mongols were themselves and they did just that when they were forced to stop their advance into Western Europe because of a crisis of succession. Empires before them had fallen due to internal crisis, and the Mongolian Empire was no different.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 524

Works Cited:Crisis of the Mongol Age, 13.1b:Ibn al-Athir Perfect History