Russia-Ukrainian War

[no_free_lunch]

20 hours ago, mcliu said:

Isn’t Georgia still a sovereign country? Why didn’t Putin take over Georgia? France brokered a peace deal, only 300 killed on both sides. Why can’t we do this with Ukraine?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

 

 

Is it a sovereign country, the whole country in the sense that they have complete control over their territory?  Didn't they give up a bunch of land?  The point I am trying to make is that giving land to Russia, repeatedly, will only lead us giving even more land to Russia. 

 

If I understand your point, that we can save lives in the short term by compromising, that only works if the enemy then abides by the terms.  In Ukraine, there was Crimea, Donetsk, and then this much larger invasion.  It doesn't stop.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[UK]

23 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

If there was some kind of imperfect deal to be had in May 2022.......and Boris Johnson et al told Zelensky 'no dice' in a Churchill fever dream......then its really a terribly sad situation for every life lost on both sides since then.

 

Agree that the whole situation is terribly sad, but speaking about deals, didnt Prigozhin recently made a deal with Putin?

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, UK said:

 

Agree that the whole situation is terribly sad, but speaking about deals, didnt Prigozhin recently made a deal with Putin?

Putin thought he was winning in May 2022. Do you think Putin makes a deal when he is winning?

 

By the way, Putin’s official condition to even start peace talks is that Ukraine gives up the land that they concerned back last year, because that’s now Russian in his view, since he (illegally) annexed it.

 

His demand for Ukraine’ neutrality is another non-starter for the Ukraine, because a neutral Ukraine just means it’s up for grabs later for Putin a few years down the road.

 

I think the likely end state is that Ukraine obtains NATO membership as part of the peace deal, so the borders with Russia are guaranteed by Article 5. Everything else will lead to a redo of the whole war most likely, it’s just a matter when.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

For clarity the word “sovereignty” is not just about land/sea and the control of it. It is equally about economic, financial & political freedom to not be under the jackboot of any given power. 
 

I suspect my fellow Westerners here are overfocused on the first part of that definition. That is understandable. Wars makes news. 
 

ex: People’ Republic of Mongolia is a sovereign nation. But is it really ? Peel the onion, you ll see the People Republic of Mongolia is actually what they call “Outer Mongolia” and what is called “Inner Mongolia” is now a province of PRC. Peel it further, doesn’t take a genius to see while the “inner” is under de jure PRC control, the “outer” is very much under de facto influence/control of PRC. 
 

how many nations don’t have their economic sovereignty … and you won’t bat an eye about it 

[UK]

3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Putin thought he was winning in May 2022. Do you think Putin makes a deal when he is winning?

 

By the way, Putin’s official condition to even start peace talks is that Ukraine gives up the land that they concerned back last year, because that’s now Russian in his view, since he (illegally) annexed it.

 

His demand for Ukraine’ neutrality is another non-starter for the Ukraine, because a neutral Ukraine just means it’s up for grabs later for Putin a few years down the road.

 

I think the likely end state is that Ukraine obtains NATO membership as part of the peace deal, so the borders with Russia are guaranteed by Article 5. Everything else will lead to a redo of the whole war most likely, it’s just a matter when.

 

I think you are right. And, as recent events showed, even if you make a deal, you could still end up like Prigozhin:)

 

[UK]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

For clarity the word “sovereignty” is not just about land/sea and the control of it. It is equally about economic, financial & political freedom to not be under the jackboot of any given power. 
 

I suspect my fellow Westerners here are overfocused on the first part of that definition. That is understandable. Wars makes news. 
 

ex: People’ Republic of Mongolia is a sovereign nation. But is it really ? Peel the onion, you ll see the People Republic of Mongolia is actually what they call “Outer Mongolia” and what is called “Inner Mongolia” is now a province of PRC. Peel it further, doesn’t take a genius to see while the “inner” is under de jure PRC control, the “outer” is very much under de facto influence/control of PRC. 
 

how many nations don’t have their economic sovereignty … and you won’t bat an eye about it 

 

This is a very good observation. I would just add, that sometimes it could be a huge, day and night (or North Korea vs South Korea, Belarus vs Baltic states etc) difference to which power a smaller countries (lesser powers) chooses to give up most of their sovereignty, when it is possible. And Ukraine is basically fighting for its right to make a choice.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by UK

[changegonnacome]

11 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I think the likely end state is that Ukraine obtains NATO membership as part of the peace deal, so the borders with Russia are guaranteed by Article 5.

 

NATO membership for Ukraine in my opinion is simply never happening as long as Putin is President of Russia.........again it goes to the question of what was the driver of the invasion in the first place.....if your still wedded to Putin the imperialist theory then yes this NATO membership outcome is very possible, indeed likely - this was at the end of the day a greedy land grab that has failed miserably and the costs are becoming too high to sustain for Putin & justify its continuation and as such then you end the conflict with concessions (NATO, give up land captured).

 

The alternative theory and the one with the most evidence IMO is Putin/Russia as existentialists.......globally isolated, shrinking economy, bad demographics, greening of the  economy runing their long run biz model, cornered, scared rats concerned chiefly with the Russian's states security & survival over time..............this existentialism paranoia manifests itself in Russian-European foreign policy vis a vis Ukraine AND Belarus......which have always been the highest priority as bulwarks for Russia against a Europe & NATO it does not trust......as I've said before, using the existentialist paranoia framework, it is through the lands of Ukraine & Belarus that Russian state perishes as it nearly did in WWII.

 

Now you can say its impossible what has Russia to fear from any invasions from anyone in Europe......."we" iwould never invade them.......it's crazy to think like that......but this is not the way the real world of nation states work........the ultimate intentions of your opponents are never clear......put simply in the international system of nation states......only the paranoid survive......or put another way as a leader of nation your main job is to maintain its existence.....so when your opponents/enemies make strategic moves (even if they are truly innocent & defensive in nature) the correct posture for long run survival (your ultimate core job responsibility as a leader of nation) is to assume rather that EVERYTHING is an offensive move.

 

This idea, this existentialist idea is enshrined in the USA and many other nations in the very structure of their governance.....in democracies everything is up for debate & power dolled out to the house/senate/judiciary with all the checks and balances......there is one area where the President of the US retains almost unfettered control.....and that is in regards to military foreign policy.......see everybody gets it.....when it comes to the very survival of a nation.....there is very little space debate or consideration...look at the paranoia emerging around China in the US and its long-term threat to the USA.......the job of a nation is to be to paranoid.......Putin is paranoid.......Xi is paranoid.....Biden is paranoid......paranoid people dont think rationally.....therefore dont expect Putin to act rationally. I dont think this invasion was driven by rationailty or imperialism.....I think it was driven by existentialism & paranoia. NATO membership for Ukraine is therefore not a deal on the table that Putin will ever accept.

[Xerxes]

I am about to finish my reading on the Mongol Empire. It is a book that I read more than 15 years ago and re-reading again as I thought it was such a fantastic book. So well written and a must read as part of Chinese, Russian and middle eastern history. 
 

The book among many different themes cover the rise and fall of the Golden Horde of the royal line of Juji. He was Gengiz’ eldest son who established his dynasty in what is today Russia. Over centuries that semiautonomous fiefdom held sway in Western Asia but eventually succumbed to death by a thousand cuts as the world changed and a new power (Muscovy) rose. First as subjects of the Khans, than eating at the edges than swallowing their former master whole. 
 

Sure NATO expansion to East, there was no grand conspiracy behind it. It was done slowly mostly at the behest of countries that wanted to have a new start. There was no grand directional desire to mess things up. But the upshot of that gradual unplanned attrition was that the now incumbent power in the East was getting killed by a thousand cuts. A thousand unplanned cuts from a Western point of view, (and I believe that to be the case) but a thousand planned cuts from Moscow point of view, when the same person is viewing the changing landscape from the Kremlin over the decades, and the gradual relative decline.
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Xerxes

[changegonnacome]

57 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Sure NATO expansion to East, there was no grand conspiracy behind it. It was done slowly mostly at the behest of countries that wanted to have a new start. There was no grand directional desire to mess things up. But the upshot of that gradual unplanned attrition was that the now incumbent power in the East was getting killed by a thousand cuts. A thousand unplanned cuts from a Western point of view, (and I believe that to be the case) but a thousand planned cuts from Moscow point of view, when the same person is viewing the changing landscape from the Kremlin over the decades, and the gradual relative decline.

Exactly - to us the NATO expansion is of course innocent “we” would never be the aggressor….NATO is a purely defensive organization with benign aims*..…an opposing power however, Russia in this case, must assume the worst of NATO….paranoia is both the natural order of the international system but ultimately the correct posture. 
 

As great power the US has this exactly correct with the Monroe doctrine…..not a single piece of foreign military hardware can be placed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. End of story.
 

The cost of assuming the best of intentions from your enemy and getting it wrong - is that you don’t get to exist anymore.
 

*lets be clear however it’s well understood and accepted….NATO was a mechanism by which the USA post-WWII got to contain the USSR as a peer global competitor 

[UK]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

I am about to finish my reading on the Mongol Empire. It is a book that I read more than 15 years ago and re-reading again as I thought it was such a fantastic book. So well written and a must read as part of Chinese, Russian and middle eastern history. 
 

The book among many different themes cover the rise and fall of the Golden Horde of the royal line of Juji. He was Gengiz’ eldest son who established his dynasty in what is today Russia. Over centuries that semiautonomous fiefdom held sway in Western Asia but eventually succumbed to death by a thousand cuts as the world changed and a new power (Muscovy) rose. First as subjects of the Khans, than eating at the edges than swallowing their former master whole. 
 

Sure NATO expansion to East, there was no grand conspiracy behind it. It was done slowly mostly at the behest of countries that wanted to have a new start. There was no grand directional desire to mess things up. But the upshot of that gradual unplanned attrition was that the now incumbent power in the East was getting killed by a thousand cuts. A thousand unplanned cuts from a Western point of view, (and I believe that to be the case) but a thousand planned cuts from Moscow point of view, when the same person is viewing the changing landscape from the Kremlin over the decades, and the gradual relative decline.

 

This is very interesting! I remember finding another book about Genghis Khan and was very surprised (because this was the the opposite of what I had learned under soviet educational system about the subject):

 

"The Mongol army led by Genghis Khan subjugated more lands and people in twenty-five years than the Romans did in four hundred. In nearly every country the Mongols conquered, they brought an unprecedented rise in cultural communication, expanded trade, and a blossoming of civilization. Vastly more progressive than his European or Asian counterparts, Genghis Khan abolished torture, granted universal religious freedom, and smashed feudal systems of aristocratic privilege. From the story of his rise through the tribal culture to the explosion of civilization that the Mongol Empire unleashed, this brilliant work of revisionist history is nothing less than the epic story of how the modern world was made. “Reads like the Iliad…Part travelogue, part epic narrative.” — Washington Post “It’s hard to think of anyone else who rose from such inauspicious beginnings to something so awesome, except maybe Jesus.”

 

But basically it again explained why this empire of Genghis Khan was so successful and thrived at its time. Because at the time it was superior to any other alternative and so the system just spread, intentionally or not, because it had what to offer for the people / nations under its rule/bootstrap? Perhaps not unlike any other empire it any particular point in history? Then came Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana.  And so naturally all those superior systems of the time rose at the expense of the inferior systems?

 

So I do not know if this expansion it is planed or unplanned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech), but I think that there is at least one thing which is perhaps obvious at this time: a former Soviet empire (or what is left of it) currently is a very inferior system and just does not has much or anything good at all to offer anymore. This is basically a former empire run by criminals, now turned to a war criminals on a big scale. Name me at least one country, under their influence, which is thriving or going up? More likely than not these are also failed states or on their way to it. While on the contrary, most members of Nato or EU (or both) is in peace and enjoying prosperity. So isn't all this just self explanatory? Now, what to do and how to cope with this failed former empire, which is nuclear armed to the teeth, and whose regime of course also have its own interests, I have no idea and for sure it is all very precarious and dangerous etc.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by UK

[Xerxes]

Pax Tartar indeed unified euroasian mass continent for a short while boosted trade between regions  

 

Unfortunately Western and middle eastern history taught at school focuses on one thing about mongols : the ferocity of their wrath and the path destruction they left behind to those who oppose them. 
 

from a military point of view, the Mongols were waging Napoleonic wars at gargantuan scale 500 years before European learned maneuver large mass armies. Pre-Napoleon (and Frederick the Great), European ran army levies aimed at taking towns and cities. Napoleon changed all that. He destroyed armies in the field and got the cities through peace treaties and negotiation. 
 

I highly recommend for folks to read up on the Mongols. It is an incredible history.
 

Even the Chinese pay homage to Kublai Khan as the Chinese Emperor who unified China. Pre-Mongols, China was made several different nations. 
 

On Russia, the Golden Horde was the longest lasting Khanate, and its prints are all over Russia. Crimea was the last stronghold of the descendants of the ruling Khans of Golden Horde. 
 

The IlKhans in the Middle East changed the course of history. But eventually like the Mongols in China they were back-assimilated by Persians. 
 

Europe got lucky. Was saved by the untimely death of Otagi Kakhan, which required the armies of Subtai and Batu to close their European campaign and head back to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan. That allowed Europe to leap ahead for the next several centuries. A fact unknown to most Westerners. 
 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

BTW. Pax Roman was centuries before Pax Tartar. 
 

Italians today may fancy themselves as descendants of Roman but not to me. Roman history was not inherited by a single modern nation. Rather by the West & Eastern Europe at large. German emperors crown themselves with the Imperial crown, to put themselves ahead of Kings. Moscow saw itself as the Third Rome. Mehumd the Conqueror was styled as Kaiser-of-Rum Etc etc.   
 

Mongols were different. Today’ Mongolia is the cultural/historical heir to Genghiz Khan and his legacy. Even though there is not much about modern Mongolia. Same for the British or the Persians. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

Exactly - to us the NATO expansion is of course innocent “we” would never be the aggressor….NATO is a purely defensive organization with benign aims*..…an opposing power however, Russia in this case, must assume the worst of NATO….paranoia is both the natural order of the international system but ultimately the correct posture. 
 

As great power the US has this exactly correct with the Monroe doctrine…..not a single piece of foreign military hardware can be placed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. End of story.
 

The cost of assuming the best of intentions from your enemy and getting it wrong - is that you don’t get to exist anymore.
 

*lets be clear however it’s well understood and accepted….NATO was a mechanism by which the USA post-WWII got to contain the USSR as a peer global competitor 

it is like my backyard, I have trees and weeds slowly creeping over the past 10 years since I bought it.
 

last month, I compared a picture from 10 years ago. I was like holy shit. It is of course unplanned by the mother nature. The forest is not conspiring against me.  Just taking its natural course of creeping toward my house. 
 

but I finally drew a red line and clear everything out. The forest may not know the boundary of my backyard, but I do. 
 

[UK]

28 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

it is like my backyard, I have trees and weeds slowly creeping over the past 10 years since I bought it.
 

last month, I compared a picture from 10 years ago. I was like holy shit. It is of course unplanned by the mother nature. The forest is not conspiring against me.  Just taking its natural course of creeping toward my house. 
 

but I finally drew a red line and clear everything out. The forest may not know the boundary of my backyard, but I do. 
 

 

If I was ask to write a somewhat similar analogy of the situation, it would be more like one of these stories when a person in a nice and improving neighborhood for whatever reasons turns his backyard into some kind of a hole or dump, by bringing all kinds of bad behavior, waste, starts feeding 20 or so stray cats and so on, to stay safe he owns no less than 3 aggressive dogs and some arms, to keep the distance, he harass and confronts its neighbors in other ways and blames everyone except himself for his miseries:). But of course also he is paranoid and wants some privacy and keep everybody away aka Monroe doctrine:). Depending on the neighborhood and other circumstances, this situation could go on for a long time, maybe even all neighborhood could turn to shit, but more likely then not, the situation will resolve over time, at his expense:)

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by UK

[Spekulatius]

Didn't the Mongols typical kill 1/4 of the population when they conquered land? I think they eventually out-expanded their logistics and that's why they stopped expanding. Then there was infighting which also increased with the larger and larger empire.

 

I also think the Europeans learned and made better and better fortifications to basically stall the Mongols. The Mongol being so far away needed quick victories or they ran into trouble and could not sustain their troops and horses (again logistics).

Or maybe it was the introduction of paper money instead of silver and gold coins that did them in.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Didn't the Mongols typical kill 1/4 of the population when they conquered land? I think they eventually out-expanded their logistics and that's why they stopped expanding. Then there was infighting which also increased with the larger and larger empire.

 

I also think the Europeans learned and made better and better fortifications to basically stall the Mongols. The Mongol being so far away needed quick victories or they ran into trouble and could not sustain their troops and horses (again logistics).

Or maybe it was the introduction of paper money instead of silver and gold coins that did them in.

 

nope. The Mongols razed cities to the ground only when a choice was given and the enemy refused to surrender. It is not consolation to the victims but it is factual. 

 

There is no record of any city that razed and pillaged when they surrendered. Religious freedom was the norm under the Mongol yoke. 
 

Your information on European resistance is incorrect. European were saved by the death of the Great Khan. European were in any position to defend had Subotai had not turned back. Also later on future European campaigns by the mongols were put on hold, because Mongke Khan (fourth in line on the imperial throne) owed his sceptre to the help of ruling Khan of the Golden Horde. So an understanding developed whereby the Golden Horde would be semi autonomous from the imperial throne so when decree from Mongke came to wage war and expand the empire, those campaign were waged by his two brothers against Middle East and Sung China —- and not Europe as that was seen to be “Golden Horde” jurisdiction. His two brother being Hologu Khan, founder of Ilkhan, and Kublai Khan, the future Great Khan. 

 

in fact the only Westerner that ever got close to get the Wrath of Khan is William Shatner. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Xerxes

[no_free_lunch]

I have read about the Mongol empire as well.  I don't know, interesting theories regarding the stop at Europe's backdoor.  At the end of the day we can speculate on why they did not move on but we have to know that they could not.  Europe had a lot of land, people, gold, surely something would have enticed the mongols.   I have to think they just couldn't do it given the hundreds of years window they had and the hyper-aggressive behavior elsewhere.  I don't claim to be an expert here but feel free to skewer me on this, the Mongols investigated and were unable to take Europe.  The proof, or lack of proof, lack of a taken Europe, is in the pudding as they say.

 

Otherwise i have to agree with much of what I have read.  The Mongols were seemingly more civilized that many of the counterparts in the sense that they could be negotiated with, respected their treaties and would generally leave a conquered civilization alone.  This is perhaps one of the reasons their empire ultimately faded, that beyond political subjugation they did not spread their civilization.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Dinar]

Marco Polo certainly had a very high opinion of the Mongol rule in China.

[Castanza]

On 8/30/2023 at 8:11 AM, Xerxes said:

I am about to finish my reading on the Mongol Empire. It is a book that I read more than 15 years ago and re-reading again as I thought it was such a fantastic book. So well written and a must read as part of Chinese, Russian and middle eastern history. 
 

The book among many different themes cover the rise and fall of the Golden Horde of the royal line of Juji. He was Gengiz’ eldest son who established his dynasty in what is today Russia. Over centuries that semiautonomous fiefdom held sway in Western Asia but eventually succumbed to death by a thousand cuts as the world changed and a new power (Muscovy) rose. First as subjects of the Khans, than eating at the edges than swallowing their former master whole. 
 

Sure NATO expansion to East, there was no grand conspiracy behind it. It was done slowly mostly at the behest of countries that wanted to have a new start. There was no grand directional desire to mess things up. But the upshot of that gradual unplanned attrition was that the now incumbent power in the East was getting killed by a thousand cuts. A thousand unplanned cuts from a Western point of view, (and I believe that to be the case) but a thousand planned cuts from Moscow point of view, when the same person is viewing the changing landscape from the Kremlin over the decades, and the gradual relative decline.
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Can’t learn about the Mongols without some Dan Carlin Hardcore History….Europe was saved by a very untimely death. 

[Castanza]

14 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

I have read about the Mongol empire as well.  I don't know, interesting theories regarding the stop at Europe's backdoor.  At the end of the day we can speculate on why they did not move on but we have to know that they could not.  Europe had a lot of land, people, gold, surely something would have enticed the mongols.   I have to think they just couldn't do it given the hundreds of years window they had and the hyper-aggressive behavior elsewhere.  I don't claim to be an expert here but feel free to skewer me on this, the Mongols investigated and were unable to take Europe.  The proof, or lack of proof, lack of a taken Europe, is in the pudding as they say.

 

Otherwise i have to agree with much of what I have read.  The Mongols were seemingly more civilized that many of the counterparts in the sense that they could be negotiated with, respected their treaties and would generally leave a conquered civilization alone.  This is perhaps one of the reasons their empire ultimately faded, that beyond political subjugation they did not spread their civilization.

 

The Mongols stopped their exploits in Europe because their leader died and there was division amounts the leadership on a successor. 
 

Prior to this death; they were cutting through Poland like a hot knife through butter. They would decimate armies of 75k with less than 20k of men who were supposed to be just a scouting party. The Mongols had a massive moat when it came to warfare tactics. Their brutality was unmatched as well.  Prior to the Mongols, siege warfare could be drawn out for a few years. They could raid cities and decimate armies in weeks and months. Many many times single battles decided the outcome. European Knights were no match for the Mongols technique. The Comanche Native Americans dominated with similar techniques. 
 

I believe it was in Ukraine where the Mongols captured 10,000 soldiers and they tied them up and stacked them like cord wood. They then proceeded to build a wooden platform on top of them where the Mongols then climbed on top of and ate their victory meal. The weight slowly crushed the enemy. 
 

Ogedei’s death caused the “scouting party” to turn back to elect a new leader. 
 

EU would look VERY different today without this single death. Not too often in history do big changes boil down to single events like this. 

[Xerxes]

Thanks. @Castanza for the write up. 
I just didn’t have the energy to argue … 

 

And also thanks for showing me an interesting podcast to add in to my repertoire. Hopefully is subscription free

 

That said i feel when it comes to history it is best digested through reading +500 pages books. That is how context and depths seeps in. For me anyways. But podcast have come a long way too in terms of quality and but usually it is a function of how good is the host in seeping that depth to the listeners in a way that sticks. 

[Pelagic]

3 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Thanks. @Castanza for the write up. 
I just didn’t have the energy to argue … 

 

And also thanks for showing me an interesting podcast to add in to my repertoire. Hopefully is subscription free

 

That said i feel when it comes to history it is best digested through reading +500 pages books. That is how context and depths seeps in. For me anyways. But podcast have come a long way too in terms of quality and but usually it is a function of how good is the host in seeping that depth to the listeners in a way that sticks. 

 

Dan Carlin's Wrath of the Khan's episodes are a bit more than the average podcast, like most of his other series in Hardcore History. I think that particular series is either 4 or 5 episodes, each 2 hours long or so. He explores some of the what ifs had the Mongols gotten into Europe, like would their horses that were adapted to the Eurasian steppe have been able to find sufficient forage to continue their rapid advance. European warfare at the time was also rather siege centric with defensive fortifications and siege warfare being the name of the game in many conflicts, could a smaller Mongol army enjoy success if forced into prolonged siege warfare. Just a few of the thought experiments he gets into that history will likely never know the answer to.

 

In any case, I highly recommend his series, they bring a lot of life to the topics he covers.

[Castanza]

21 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Thanks. @Castanza for the write up. 
I just didn’t have the energy to argue … 

 

And also thanks for showing me an interesting podcast to add in to my repertoire. Hopefully is subscription free

 

That said i feel when it comes to history it is best digested through reading +500 pages books. That is how context and depths seeps in. For me anyways. But podcast have come a long way too in terms of quality and but usually it is a function of how good is the host in seeping that depth to the listeners in a way that sticks. 

Dan Carlin is a whole different animal when it comes to podcasts. He often reads 50+ books and original sources before even attempting to construct a historical narrative. He often only puts out 1-2 podcast series a year. Usually lists all his sources etc. 

 

There are quite a few free episodes but his paid series is very much worth it imo. 

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, Castanza said:

Dan Carlin is a whole different animal when it comes to podcasts. He often reads 50+ books and original sources before even attempting to construct a historical narrative. He often only puts out 1-2 podcast series a year. Usually lists all his sources etc. 

 

There are quite a few free episodes but his paid series is very much worth it imo. 

Definitely want to second that Dan Calin's hardcore history is gold for history buffs.

 

I didnt want to argue, but i think there are theories around that it was more than just the death of  Khan that caused the Mongol juggernaut to stop.

 

i do think it is correct to state that the Mongols were much more than a barbarian horde. For once they facilitated trade - because they controlled such a large landmass all the way to China, it made it actually easier to travel than dealing with a dozen kingdoms and warlords.

 

They were also masters of siege warfare and likely the first one to effectively use cannons, even though gunpowder was invented by the Chinese. Then they were masters of logistics as their communication system resembled the Pony Express.

[John Hjorth]

To me, it's incredible how this situation in this topic, can be nitpicked and analyzed into *I don't what's going to happen*.