34

There are a number of tactical and strategic reasons that the Mongols were successful. Core of strong leaders: Not only were the upper levels of military leadership strong, but the mid-level and lower level leadership was also very strong. Flexibility of tactics: They used whatever means necessary to defeat their enemies, including using direct ...


27

Others (and perhaps myself) will no doubt expand, but the general outline was as follows: Replace the nascent hierarchical feudal system of Anglo-Saxon England (and similar to contemporary French and German feudal systems) with an Anglo-Norman flat feudal system where every baron swears an oath of fealty directly to the Monarch, and only knights swear ...


22

The City of Xi'an / Hsi-an aka Ch'ang-an aka Hao - 51 (58) times 771 B.C. - conquered by the Quanrong barbarians 771 B.C. - recovered by Qin forces 207 B.C. - captured by Liu Bang's army A.D. 23 - captured by the Green Forests Army rebels 25 - captured by the Red Eyebrows Army rebels 26 - recovered by Deng Yu 192 - captured by Li Jue and Guo Si 198 - ...


21

Because the Sahara desert goes all the way to the Atlantic coast. The Romans were not great seafarers and required the support of coastal towns to cover long distances. The Western Sahara represents a break in that chain, over 1000 km of inhospitable coastline. Even today, Western Sahara is one of the most sparsely populated areas in the world with an ...


14

Yes, they did. They argued that their conquests bring benefits of peace, civilization and prosperity to the conquered lands. This point of view was expressed not only by native Roman writers (like Cicero) but also by some writers from the conquered nations (Polybius, for example). In the case of Greece, they certainly did not bring civilization to Greece, ...


14

I find it a bit too convenient and Rome's greatest extent too large to be believable . . . Why do we believe it then? Actually, we don't. Historians recognise that the Romans liked to claim their wars were "just and righteous". Equally, however, it is recognised that this was mostly bunk. In fact, modern scholars argue the Romans increasingly perverted the ...


12

Lifting the contents of the very helpful link provided by @gvk into an answer: Source: Fiat Money in 17th Century Castile, by Fran├žois R. Velde, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Warren E. Weber, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Minnesota. Footnote 1 states: The ducat disappeared as a coin in 1537 but remained as a unit of ...


9

The Romans for the most part didn't expand because there was nice productive land they'd like to colonize. They expanded for political reasons. For example, North West Africa was originally part of Carthage. After the Punic wars, the Romans simply gifted most of it to their allies/clients, the native Berber kings of Numidia and Mauretania. Both eventually ...


8

This is indeed an interesting and difficult question. Mongols defeated almost all states around them, and they certainly had no technological advantage or any superiority in the weapons. But this is not the first case in history when nomads defeated the more technologically advanced settled civilizations. (One historical example is the Hunns, and parts of ...


6

There was Atlit Detainee Camp, a prison built by the British to hold Jewish immigrants. POWs from the Arab armies as well as Palestinian irregular forces were put there but all were released shortly after the war's end in 1949. Contrary to the wishes of the organizers of Israel Apartheid week,it was not an extermination/torture camp. For a few years after ...


6

Most of that huge area was and until today still is scarcely populated and thus not really "controlled", but rather "owned". Control is executed over people, cities, communities, important landmarks, important resources by the presence of military, militia and gov. institutions. And while the Mongols certainly had a lot of these under their control, most of ...


5

Even the Mongols, who killed over thirty million people in their conquests and were some of the most bloodthirsty invaders on record found it more worthwhile to set themselves up as leaders. Why would they make China a desert when they could make the Chinese build them a pleasure dome? Invasions occur in search of resources. Land is only one particular ...


4

Because their ships weren't up to very long sea voyages, particularly if they didn't know where they were going. The coast of northwest Africa is dangerous. The Portuguese called part of it the Cabo Bojador, which means the Cape of Fear. They didn't manage to get past that until the 15th century. The Romans were nothing like as sophisticated in terms of ...


4

Really the only strategic similarity you've pointed out is the value of an island fortress. Looking into it deeper, I'm not sure there's much more to it than that. The core of the Mongol army was their horse archers. The combination of being faster than anyone they faced and being able to attack at range was devastating to the typical non-nomadic foot army ...


3

The Byzantines did know about Caltrops. A Companion to Byzantine Illustrated Manuscripts, Page 111 The so-called "Heron of Byzantium" is a name used to refer to an anonymous Byzantine compiler and commentator of two treatises: the De strategematibus, an instructional manual on the fabrication of siege machines and Geodesia, a manual on the use of a ...


3

1/ the fragmented and disunited nature of China of the time. The ability of the Mongols to fight only part of China and acquire Chinese allies was absolutely crucial for the Mongol conquest. Without this the Mongols would not have succeeded. This is a key factor in Mongol success that is often overlooked. Against a strong unified China the Mongols would not ...


2

1) largest area. According to Wikipedia's list of largest empires, the largest thalassocracy or colonial empire was the British Empire about 1920 with 3.35 million square kilometers or 13.71 million square miles, 23.84 percent of the world's land area of 148,940,000 square kilometers or 57,500,000 square miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


2

The Romans were pretty bad seafarers. The African coast is pretty much desert, until you go much further south than the Romans could possibly do - even if they were great seafarers. Whatever you could get down south you could get elsewhere for much less cost; it simply wasn't economically feasible. Even if something (usually with hindsight) is technically ...


2

Wars are usually fought because of some combination of fear, honor, or interest - even when the stated rational is or seems closer to nationalism or fear mongering. You can't really put much of a pattern forward beyond that without inspecting the causes of each individual war. Even then, filing a particular war declaration under a single reason will ...


2

As the Mapuche sit in the first rank in terms of indigenous resistance they must have already had a developed practice of war when the Inca arrived. However, they did not wield this power as a state. According to the Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations, "Although they dominated a vast territory, the Pre-Columbian Mapuches did not recognize any political or ...


1

Alexandria of Egypt actually would count.. Perhaps?. While it's true Alexander founded the city. It's also true he built it on top of the existing Egyptian city of Rhacotis. Alexander the Great both founded cities and renamed existing cities after himself. It is claimed Alexander named 70 cities for himself in total. From: The Many Alexandrias of ...


1

It is not possible to give a short answer: the question is too complicated (and somewhat controversial). There are several good books which address it in depth. I can recommend three of them which try to answer this question: Azar Gat, War in Human Civilization, Oxford 2006, Lawrence Keeley, War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, USA, 1996 Ian ...


1

From what I know, Jerusalem has been controlled by the most separate governments. What I mean is that once it has been controlled by one government, if that government reconquers, then you do not add another number. In this case, Jerusalem, I believe, has been captured the most times.


1

The city of Xuzhou in China is said to have seen 200 notable battles. I don't know how many of these ended with the city being captured, but it seems like it would rank very high. I did a quick check and between 1911 and 1948 it changed hands at least 5 times.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible