Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Konrad Cruze" data-source="post: 65863" data-attributes="member: 542">Bad argument, Mongols didn&#039;t have land that could produce huge crop yields, and most of the land was too hard to build any significant structures on until modern tools appeared. And those modern tools only appear in regions where the land is soft, easily creating structures first, then mining minerals easily as well. Yet, the Mongols created an Empire. They took logistics into great consideration (they were next to the silk trade) and helped traders with transporting their goods, with the loss being borne by the elites and the traders. This encourages trade in the region. This allowed them to fund their armies and then invade regions where economies were not disturbed as much by their barbarism as the concentration of wealth spread out. So, many tribes stayed since the flow of goods and services has become more prominent and the risk has been reduced. You just took the positive for the Mongolian and ignored all the negatives then did you the reverse for African. Many Africans had great pieces of land where resources could be harvested, like in Zimbabwe, then structures could be built to work on those resources, and then a trade route could be established. While it is true that they suffered from a fly that killed cattle and moisture was low for high crop yields, they were close to Zanzibar, where Arab traders established their colonies. There was around the African trade route as well. They just needed to establish control or influence over those, but didn&#039;t. They didn&#039;t bring fertilizers, they didn&#039;t bring medicine, and tools to industrialize. They mostly traded to get some luxury foods and items. Also, building luxury homes over the development of infrastructure. Like I mentioned the hominid admixtures argument in my previous post to the other guy. They were racially incapable of making long term decision making.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Konrad Cruze, post: 65863, member: 542"] Bad argument, Mongols didn't have land that could produce huge crop yields, and most of the land was too hard to build any significant structures on until modern tools appeared. And those modern tools only appear in regions where the land is soft, easily creating structures first, then mining minerals easily as well. Yet, the Mongols created an Empire. They took logistics into great consideration (they were next to the silk trade) and helped traders with transporting their goods, with the loss being borne by the elites and the traders. This encourages trade in the region. This allowed them to fund their armies and then invade regions where economies were not disturbed as much by their barbarism as the concentration of wealth spread out. So, many tribes stayed since the flow of goods and services has become more prominent and the risk has been reduced. You just took the positive for the Mongolian and ignored all the negatives then did you the reverse for African. Many Africans had great pieces of land where resources could be harvested, like in Zimbabwe, then structures could be built to work on those resources, and then a trade route could be established. While it is true that they suffered from a fly that killed cattle and moisture was low for high crop yields, they were close to Zanzibar, where Arab traders established their colonies. There was around the African trade route as well. They just needed to establish control or influence over those, but didn't. They didn't bring fertilizers, they didn't bring medicine, and tools to industrialize. They mostly traded to get some luxury foods and items. Also, building luxury homes over the development of infrastructure. Like I mentioned the hominid admixtures argument in my previous post to the other guy. They were racially incapable of making long term decision making. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread