How Did Mongolians Build Such A Large Empire

[sikhstudent99]

What political tacts did they use who did they build alliances with

There are only 11 million mongolions in the world out of 6 billion people yet making less then 1 percent of the population they built the largest empire taking countries like japan china russia iran afghanistan iraq

What kept sikhs from building a massive empire an ther are 20 million sikhs today

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

What political tacts did they use who did they build alliances with

There are only 11 million mongolions in the world out of 6 billion people yet making less then 1 percent of the population they built the largest empire taking countries like japan china russia iran afghanistan iraq

What kept sikhs from building a massive empire an ther are 20 million sikhs today

They didn't take over japan, and not all of russia (not this takes away from their accomplishments). Khan managed to unite all the Mongolian tribes, and it was under his leadership they thrived. Their army had better strategy, better equipment, better cavalry, and with Khan as their leader they defeated any military in front of them. They learned to take advantage of their enemies weaknesses. As far as I can recall the most important alliances they had were amongst themselves.

They sort of just rode the momentum, eventually they split up, and went their own ways. Their empire fell after about 150 years. Maybe if they stayed united, formed alliances with others, they would have lasted longer.

[Balkaar]

What kept sikhs from building a massive empire an ther are 20 million sikhs today

Maharaja Ranjit Singh signed the Treaty of Amritsar with the East India Company in 1809 which prohibited his Southward expansion across the Sutlej. All that was left for the Sikhs was to expand towards the Northwest, across the Khyber Pass, and into Afghanistan. But the Afghans were formidable opponents who knew their inhospitable terrain better than the lowlander Sikhs ever could. The Afghans have never been defeated on their home-soil, not even by contemporary white armies.

Like the Mongol Empire, the Sikh Empire was effectively forged by a single, brilliant man, Ranjit Singh. He carried it on his back until his death. But like Genghis Khan, his successors were weak and inept (although it bears mentioning that Ranjit's were much more useless than Genghis's), which is bound to happen under a system of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy like the one Ranjit Singh carelessly introduced to the republican Sikh nation.

Also, the Sikhs and their opponents were quite evenly matched. The veer above has mentioned that the Mongols however were much more tactically advanced than all the peoples who opposed them, even those of Europe. Combat in Christendom was dictated by archaic standards of chivalry - a lot of all-out charges using clunky heavy cavalry. The Mongols were lightly armoured, more manoeuvrable and far better horsemen. They used to feign retreat and then turn around on their saddles, firing volley after volley into the pursuing enemy ranks. But they too succumbed to the inevitable fate of powerful institutions, to corruption and infighting. Their empire fractured into several 'Hordes', the Golden Horde, the White Horde, the Blue Horde etc.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

What political tacts did they use who did they build alliances with

There are only 11 million mongolions in the world out of 6 billion people yet making less then 1 percent of the population they built the largest empire taking countries like japan china russia iran afghanistan iraq

What kept sikhs from building a massive empire an ther are 20 million sikhs today

The best answer is: they were interested like crazy to fight constantly. Wherever they went they just declared war; that's also the reason the empire was destroyed after Genghis Khan. It's not like the British or Spanish Empires which actually first built diplomatic relations and then conquered, also leading their empire to spread much farther.

[jkvlondon]

Maharaja Ranjit Singh signed the Treaty of Amritsar with the East India Company in 1809 which prohibited his Southward expansion across the Sutlej. All that was left for the Sikhs was to expand towards the Northwest, across the Khyber Pass, and into Afghanistan. But the Afghans were formidable opponents who knew their inhospitable terrain better than the lowlander Sikhs ever could. The Afghans have never been defeated on their home-soil, not even by contemporary white armies.

Like the Mongol Empire, the Sikh Empire was effectively forged by a single, brilliant man, Ranjit Singh. He carried it on his back until his death. But like Genghis Khan, his successors were weak and inept (although it bears mentioning that Ranjit's were much more useless than Genghis's), which is bound to happen under a system of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy like the one Ranjit Singh carelessly introduced to the republican Sikh nation.

Also, the Sikhs and their opponents were quite evenly matched. The veer above has mentioned that the Mongols however were much more tactically advanced than all the peoples who opposed them, even those of Europe. Combat in Christendom was dictated by archaic standards of chivalry - a lot of all-out charges using clunky heavy cavalry. The Mongols were lightly armoured, more manoeuvrable and far better horsemen. They used to feign retreat and then turn around on their saddles, firing volley after volley into the pursuing enemy ranks. But they too succumbed to the inevitable fate of powerful institutions, to corruption and infighting. Their empire fractured into several 'Hordes', the Golden Horde, the White Horde, the Blue Horde etc.

I think the hero worship of Ranjit SIngh is fine but recognise his faults , he removed the institution of sarbat khalsa and placed the khalsa troops under other nations/creed generals (something that goes against Guru ji's advice) , he gave power and control to people who were sham sikhs and failed to secure his strongest charactered son as his heir to jathedar of all misls prior to death. Signing treaties with the British was another nail in the coffin of the Sikh national freedoms. It is easy to see that the Sikh Raj,which still thinking pakistani/Indian historians acknowledge as a golden age for literary, arts, military, political stability could have been so much more if allowed to continue southwards as the standard of life for those under the raj was brought upwards .

[StarStriker]

But the Afghans were formidable opponents who knew their inhospitable terrain better than the lowlander Sikhs ever could. The Afghans have never been defeated on their home-soil, not even by contemporary white armies.

Afghans never been defeated? Eh? Mate isnt that the biggest myth going? Alexander the great defeated them didnt he? Wat about hari singh nalwa? Ashoka the great? Also wat about nadir shah frm persia? Also didnt the mongols sue that route to come into india in the 1st place to enter "india"? Just askin btw, not arguin, coz ur much smarter than me.

[Balkaar]

Afghans never been defeated? Eh? Mate isnt that the biggest myth going? Alexander the great defeated them didnt he? Wat about hari singh nalwa? Ashoka the great? Also wat about nadir shah frm persia? Also didnt the mongols sue that route to come into india in the 1st place to enter "india"? Just askin btw, not arguin, coz ur much smarter than me.

Sorry, you're right. I should have said conquered instead of defeated (they've definitely been defeated in battles that took place on their home turf). but even then it isn't really true. The difficulty lies in that 'Afghanistan', and by extension, Afghans, didn't exist as a single nation or a single people until quite late in history. It was a historical backwater, just a no-man's land straddling the vacuum between two ancient civilizations. Successive waves of invaders and imperialists did construct outposts in parts of what is now Afghanistan and used it as a thoroughfare to access richer parts of the world, but none of them ever really managed to consolidate the entire region all at once. This is why you wont find any shrines to the Vedic Gods in the north and far west, even though there are quite a few in the southern lands that border the Hindu Kush. When Afghanistan finally scrambled to its feet and assumed the mantle of nationhood however, they never submitted to foreign domination ever again - even when somebody assumed nominal control the Afghans never gave up fighting them, unlike most of the conquered peoples throughout history ( including our own people).

Lol, I wouldn't say I'm smarter than you, my frilly way of speaking just tricks people into thinking that.

[dallysingh101]

I think the outright viciousness of Mongols played a big part too. They weren't averse to massacring whole cities when resisted. Actually the torture techniques applied on Sikhs later on derive from their own practices, which some later Moghul leaders inherited and employed.

^^^Balkaar

That's a good point, even when occupied, the Afghans don't give up resisting. Many stubbornly refuse to be co-opted like many of our people did when colonised.

[MisterrSingh]

Flipping Mongols also heralded the end of the so-called Islamic Golden Age due to their conquests. You never know, things may have turned out differently if they hadn't been so barbaric.

[Ranjeet01]

Flipping Mongols also heralded the end of the so-called Islamic Golden Age due to their conquests. You never know, things may have turned out differently if they hadn't been so barbaric.

They say Baghdad has never been the same since.