The importance of WWI wasn't the amount of people it killed, but the political changes caused by economical factors and social disruption.maho wrote:And influenza killed more ppl than I World War. Does it mean that IWW was insignificant in greater scheme of things?Corbeau wrote:Plague killed more people than Ghengis Khan.
So, to conclude, Mongols started making a difference only *after* turning from destroyers and plunderers into rulers. However, once they were gone, things continued as usual. They didn't cause a downfall of any empire, they merely created a hiccup in history that got washed down pretty soon.Oh, ok. Khan and his heirs conquered and ruled China, Russia and India for ages, threatened half of Europe and made serious political and geopolitical turbulences. Mongol settled in world iconography, legends and culture as ruthless, bizzare plunderer. They even inspired Japanese behaviour in IIW.But even more died daily of regular diseases. No, Maho, the Khan was insignificant in the greater scheme of things.
Quite insignificant in greater scheme of things.
You said "And, when we say "vandalism" we mean bizzare, violent and destructive behaviour, not building state in northen Africa. If destroying Roman Empire is not significant, then there are no significant things in our history. "
If you think that I think that (asuming that Rome == Roman Empire), then you should read post you're replying to. Occasionally.And if you think the Vandals destroyed Rome, you should read a book occasionally
On a second reading, I'm not sure what you actually meant, but one thing is definitely wrong. Roman Empire wasn't "destroyed". It collapsed on its own. The fall of borders and the repeated ransacking of the city of Rome were just consequences.