Tag Archives: Top 10

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (Special Mention) (1) European Empires

Posted on by

 

Diachronic map of the main empires of the modern era (1492-1945) – by Nagihuan for Wikipedia “Colonial Empires” under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Declaration

 

(1) EUROPEAN EMPIRES

The definitive imperialism for most of the world – not least because it was the imperialism that defined the modern world, the first truly global imperialism that transformed the world from regional to global.

Indeed, so much so that imperialism is often defined exclusively as European imperialism, particularly when you throw in my next three special mentions as offshoots of it to broaden it to Western imperialism.

This ignores that empires predated European imperialism throughout the world, well before the existence or even the concept of the European nations behind it. A substantial part of the impact of European imperialism lies in how recent it is, eclipsing any predecessors, and the wounds it inflicted are still raw. No one seeks reparations from Roman or Mongolian imperialism.

It’s striking to think that decolonization or independence is within living memory for many of the subjects of European imperialism, particularly in Africa, with some empires clinging on into the 1970s (looking at you, Portugal ) or even beyond in legacy or some residual colonies (looking at you, Hong Kong).

Equally it ignores that many of the states that fought or fell to European imperialism were themselves empires, often aggressively or belligerently so. Indeed, I’d say all of them, at least for any polities that comprised more than one ethnic group or beyond tribes and tribal confederations. Even more homogenous or tribal polities tended to be imperial in nature over their own members, in the absence of any concept of participatory representation, where they were not actually imperial to or over their neighbors.

Ironically, it was European political concepts that undermined the default imperial state settings that applied elsewhere or prior to them, as they would the European empires themselves.

However, European imperialism was distinctive in a number of ways so as to distinguish it as the modern definition of imperialism. One is that very factor – that it is recent or modern. Another is that it consisted almost entirely of maritime empires, as opposed to the more usual territorial empires conquering adjoining or neighboring territories by land. Of course, they are not the only maritime empires in history, but those other empires either tended to be more mixed between maritime and territorial conquests or lacked the same reach (or both).

And that last point brings us to the most distinctive feature of European imperialism – its unprecedented scope, scale, and transformative force, particularly when viewed collectively, as it tends to be outside Europe.

In terms of scale and scope, it reached to every metaphorical corner of the globe, including an unparalleled command of the seas (and even skies), and to every continent, including Antarctica. Only a few countries remained independent of one European empire or another – and even then independence was often only nominal or more a balance of power between competing European nations or spheres of influence. It is not for nothing that of the top ten empires in history by land area or size, four of them are European.

And in terms of transformative force, we are living in the world it made – “to which we owe the development of transport and communication” as well as “the spread of science and technology”, industry and trade, and European culture and political ideologies. Not to mention the spread of European languages as global lingua franca – English above all, but also French and Spanish.

And yes – that transformative force had its negative aspects, which indeed tend to be the focus of contemporary perspectives on European imperialism to the exclusion of anything else. Although history is not a balance sheet, all European powers were quite prepared to resort to brutality when they had to, albeit some more so than others, or else they wouldn’t have had any empires.

Although the rest of the world tends to see European imperialism collectively – with some justice – that does conceal that there was not one European imperial power but several, as a general rule fiercely competitive with each other. Indeed, the fierce competition between European nations is often identified as a reason for European imperialism in the first place, as European technological and other advancement owed itself to European nations competing – and warring – with each other.

It also conceals that there was more than one European imperialism within what was, after all, a span of over at least half a millennium. A common historical classification is to divide European imperialism into two broad phases, albeit overlapping – as for example with the classification of the British and French Empires into their First and Second Empires which largely reflects those phases (although the Spanish and Portuguese Empires might arguably be divided into three phases).

In the first phase, from Columbus’ “discovery” of the Americas in 1492 through to the early nineteenth century or so – often styled as the Age of Discovery – the subject of European imperialism was predominantly the Americas. European imperialism did extend to Africa and Asia but was limited – in Africa as tropical disease limited European encroachment into the continent’s interior (although European penetration of the continent’s coastline and the consequent Atlantic slave trade was damaging enough) and in Asia as its polities were mostly robust enough to resist direct conquest.

This phase was certainly marked by fierce competition between European powers, despite the early lead of Spain and Portugal, which cooperated with each other at least in dividing the world up into their respective spheres of influence, by papal mediation in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas (although only after Portugal nudged the line further west to party it up in Brazil).

Other European nations disagreed as three others competed with the Spanish and Portuguese to round out the big five imperial powers in this phase – the British (or English prior to 1707), the French, and after they became independent of Spain, the Dutch. The British and French eclipsed the Spanish and Portuguese as they fought in what was no less than an Anglo-French contest for global supremacy, fought particularly in North America and India.

That phase came to end with the first wave of decolonization or wars of independence by their American settler states, although substantial parts of the Americas remained in European empires or spheres of influence.

While the second phase effectively began before the end of the first phase, it acquired its full force after the Napoleonic Wars in what is often styled as the Age of Imperialism or New Imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, as the European powers descended on Asia and Africa, the latter styled as the Scramble for Africa.

While they remained competitive to the point of occasional conflict in this phase, the European powers were remarkably cooperative in negotiating their empires or spheres of influence, although a large part of that was necessity from British naval supremacy or Pax Britannica

European imperialism deserves and will get its own top 10 (and special mentions) to do it justice, not least for ranking the individual European imperial powers. The focus of this entry are the classic eight continental European imperial powers and their empires- British (who also rank third in my Top 10 Empires), Spanish (who also rank fifth in my Top 10 Empires), French, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans and Italians.

Some might note that this omits a significant European empire, indeed the largest apart from the British – but this was distinctive and separate enough to earn its own special mention entry, as were the two other substantial non-European imperial powers in the Age of Imperialism.

A proper tier ranking of the classic eight will await their own top ten list for European empires, but Britain was obviously top dog in this phase of imperialism. Spain, which had been the British Empire of the first phase, was knocked down to mid-tier when most of its Latin American empire won its independence, then to bottom tier when defeated by the United States in the Spanish-American War.

France, the Netherlands, and Portugal all rank in high or mid-tier, with Belgium ranking in low tier for its abominations in the Congo – and latecomers Germany and Italy bringing up the rear in bottom-tier with the scraps left by other empires. Italy earned the particular humiliation of being defeated by Ethiopia, so that the latter remained the only African state to retain independence (apart from the American founded state of Liberia).

However, the charges of European imperialism don’t stop with the end of formal European empires, as European powers are charged with simply substituting neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism -“which leverages economic power” (or other forms of power and influence) “rather than military force” (or direct means of control) “in an informal empire”.

RATING: 5 STARS*****
S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (Special Mention)

Posted on by

 

I introduced my Top 10 Wars of History on the basis that I’ve always found wars a fascinating subject of history, so it’s not surprising that I’ve also always found empires a fascinating subject of history, again from the fortunate perspective of being well removed from the sharp end of them – and have similarly ranked my Top 10 Empires of History.

But I don’t just have a top ten. As usual for my top tens, I have a whole host of special mentions. My usual rule is twenty special mentions – where the subject matter is prolific enough, as it is here – which I suppose would usually make each top ten a top thirty. My special mentions are also where I tend to have some fun with the subject category and splash out with some wilder entries.

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (Special Mention)

Posted on by

Raising the flag on Iwo Jima as memorialized by the west side of the Marine Corps War Memorial, Arlington Ridge Park, Virigina

 

I’ve always found wars a fascinating subject of history, from the comfortable armchair of hindsight and the fortunate perspective of being well removed from any firsthand experience of them. History, particularly military history, has always been something of a hobby of mine. So of course I have ranked my Top 10 Wars.

But I don’t just have a top ten. As usual for my top tens, I have a whole host of special mentions. My usual rule is twenty special mentions – where the subject matter is prolific enough, as it is here – which I suppose would usually make each top ten a top thirty. My special mentions are also where I tend to have some fun with the subject category and splash out with some wilder entries.

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (1) Roman Empire

Posted on by

The Roman Empire under Trajan 117 AD – by Tataryn for Wikipedia “Roman Empire” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

(1) ROMAN EMPIRE (753 BC – 1453 AD)

THE Empire. Pax Romana.

“The grandeur that was Rome” – enduring both as empire, and in its influence or legacy.

The empire that set the template for, and defined the concept of, empire in Western civilization. Literally, with the word empire originating in the Latin imperium, as well as the word emperor originating from Latin imperator – with the title of Caesar (from the man himself) as the origin of the German Kaiser and Russian or Slavic Czar.

It may lack the size of other empires but as the saying goes, it’s not the size but what you do with it, and in this case the Roman Empire is distinguished by its sheer endurance, both in the empire itself and in its influence or legacy – “there was once a dream that was Rome”.

The Roman Empire predates the formal institutions of empire founded by Augustus (in the first century BC) – with the Roman Republic as an imperial republic, a recurring political model in Western civilization from the Greek city states, which essentially laid almost all the foundations for Mediterranean supremacy and the empire itself. Hence my starting date as that attributed to the founding of Rome (by legend).

The Republic also saw some of the most definitive events and figures of Roman history – not least Julius Caesar, who lent his name to the title of emperor and is perhaps the figure most identified with the Empire, although it was his heir Augustus who founded it in the wake of Caesar’s assassination. Like a good car salesman, Augustus just slapped the formal institutions of empire on the pretense of authority of the Republic or Senate, and said this baby can fit a millennium and a half in it.

And it did, despite the best efforts of his most notorious heirs, Caligula and Nero, as well as the Year with Four Emperors, to run it off the road in the first century AD. At its peak in the second century under Trajan – second of the so-called Five Good Emperors – it extended from the Atlantic to the Tigris, and from Scotland to the Nile.

However, the Empire’s endurance is showcased not only by its ability to remain intact over such an extent over so long a period, but to rebound from collapse or defeat in a manner unlike the steady decline of most other empires. One of the most remarkable feats was that of rebounding from collapse or at least fragmentation under the emperor Aurelian – in only five years to boot – in the so-called Crisis of the Third Century, when apart from barbarian and Persian invasions, the empire also faced the breakaway Gallic and Palmyrene Empires.

Aurelian probably extended the lifespan of the unified empire by two centuries – although the empire divided itself into western and eastern halves for administration in the fourth century, which arguably favored the eastern half with the better position as the western half slowly crumbled and fell to the barbarians at its gates.

But for sheer endurance, the title has to go to the eastern Roman empire, which history has labelled the Byzantine Empire, which lasted for a millennium past the fall of the western half, including feats of rebounding from defeats that bordered on resurrection. More like Lazarus Empire, amirite?

The first of these remains the greatest, albeit not the most, ah, resurrectionary – under legendary emperor Justinian and his even more legendary general Belisarius, taking a damn good swing at reclaiming the fallen western empire, although in hindsight the Gothic War in Italy was probably a swing too far.

In the end however, the empire suffered one defeat too many – wounded, fatally as it turned out, from the Fourth Crusade that sacked Constantinople in 1204. While it even managed the sort of spirited comeback it had previously, it simply lacked the scale of time or resources to see it through, particularly against a rising rival empire in its prime – the Ottoman Empire, that finally conquered Constantinople in 1453.

As for its enduring legacy, let me count the ways – “language, religion, art, architecture, literature, philosophy, law, and forms of government”. Latin and Greek. Christianity – Catholic and Orthodox, with the former inheriting the capitol, pontifex, many of the trappings, and much of the mystique of the western empire. “The Roman Empire’s afterlife in European cultural and political memory is no less significant and important than its actual physical and temporal power in its height.”

 

The vexillum of the Roman Empire – a red banner with the letters SPQR (the Senate and the People of Rome) in Gold surrounded by a gold wreath hung on a military standard topped by a Roman eagle – by SsolbergJ for Wikipedia “Roman Empire” published under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

DECLINE & FALL

And how!

THE decline and fall – they wrote the book on it. Well, actually, that was Edward Gibbon, but you know what I mean.

That “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, retreating to the breath of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world”.

Even now, the decline and fall of the Roman Empire informs much modern discourse about state failure – from Edward Gibbon onwards, “we have been obsessed with the fall: it has been valued as an archetype for every perceived decline, and, hence, as a symbol for our own fears”.

As decline and fall, it involved the former as much as the latter – the Romans were consistently their own worst enemies, fighting their endless civil wars even with the barbarians at their gates.

There’s just something about the Romans desperately trying to hold one line after another in that “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” that resonates with me. Indeed, any last stand or waning force often invokes the fall of the Roman Empire, both in history, and in fantasy or science fiction (which often replays it).

THE ROMAN EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, the Empire never fell, at least according to P.K. Dick. Or we’re on to our Third or Fourth Rome (or more), going by all the countries that have claimed succession to the Roman Empire. Or at least we’re still living in a Roman world.

THE SUN NEVER SETS

“For these I set no limits, world or time,
But make the gift of empire without end.

Yeah – get some Aeneid into you! Yes – technically the sun did set on the Roman Empire. But the sun never sets on my Roman Empire. Or, more seriously, its legacy – from the global Roman Catholic Church to the republican forms of government adopted in the Americas.

EVIL EMPIRE

Again – and how! Ooo – I’d say crucifixions all round, Flavius!

Friends, Romans, countrymen – you know I love me some Romanitas, but you have to admit the Roman Empire would rank high in a top ten of evil empires. The Romans were absolutely brutal in conquering or enslaving their enemies (or anyone really) and suppressing rebellions or revolts.

Historians might argue over whether they were more brutal than other polities or by the standards of their time – I’ve certainly seen some argue that it was, including one entertaining argument that attributed it to lead poisoning from their water pipes. It certainly is entertaining to imagine the Romans as a bunch of lead-crazed psychos, running around like Patrick Bateman.

But you know you’re evil when people put a pox on your pax – “to plunder, to slaughter, to usurp, they give the lying name of empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” And that was from a Roman, Tacitus, although he put those words in the mouth of a Caledonian chieftain, whether that was apocryphal or otherwise.

Or when Christians – one of the groups repressed by the Romans, even if, almost unique in history, they did manage to pull off their great messianic ghost dance and win, conquering the empire itself – write you into their apocalypse as the Whore of Babylon (even if she is kinda hot), and your emperor (or a weird resurrected zombie version of Nero) as the Beast of the Apocalypse.

RATING: 5 STARS*****
S-TIER (GOD-TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (1) Second World War

Posted on by

Taxis to Hell – and Back – Into the Jaws of Death, an iconic image of men of the 16th Infantry Regiment, US 1st Infantry Division wading ashore from their landing craft on Omaha Beach on the morning of D-Day, 6 June 1944, public domain image photographed by Chief Photographer’s Mate (CPHoM) Robert F. Sargent (and used in Wikipedia “Normandy landings”)

 

(1) SECOND WORLD WAR (1939-1945)

 

Yes – it’s the big one. The Cold War may have threatened to be bigger, but there are no world wars to rival the wars that are officially known as such, particularly the Second World War, which was more destructive, extensive and pervasive than the First, despite largely being a continuation of it.

The narrative of WW2 is worthy of its top ten and is well known, even in popular culture and imagination, albeit often distorted or sensationalized. It featured almost every aspect of modern warfare, while remaining unique in others – not least being fought to a conclusive result and destruction of enemy states rarely paralleled in modern history.

My favorite historian of it – H.P. Willmott – has quipped that, paradoxically, WW2 might be regarded as the last war of the 19th century and WW1 was the first war of the 20th century. I understand that to mean WW2 was closer to 19th century wars, in part because the technology and technique of offensive mobility won out over defensive firepower and attrition – briefly and with waning effect through the war’s duration – while its predecessor was more characteristic of 20th century wars that followed it.

Or alternatively, WW2 was closer to the model of the Franco-Prussian War, at least in its European opening, or the Napoleonic Wars in its continuation within Europe. On the other hand, WW1 was closer to the American Civil War as the true precursor of twentieth century warfare, with the western front of the latter resembling the eastern theater of the latter, only with even more lethal firepower. Indeed, WW1 is sometimes dubbed a European Civil War. It’s a pity that European powers, particularly Germany, seemed to have reflected less on the American Civil War than the Franco-Prussian War for future wars.

Ironically, however, WW1 finished by armistice in a manner closer to the Franco-Prussian War except with France and Germany reversed, while the WW2 was fought to unconditional surrender like the American Civil War. For that matter, H.P. Willmott has also observed that the war of the United States against Japan in WW2 uncannily resembled the former’s war against the Confederacy.

And speaking of the United States, my own quip is that the Second World War is the American Iliad, while the Cold War is the American Odyssey. USA! USA! USA!

 

ART OF WAR

The theme of H.P. Willmott’s The Great Crusade – the best single-volume history of the war – is the refutation of the popular myth of German military excellence. As he paraphrased Oscar Wilde, to lose one world war may be regarded as misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness.

Contrary to the art of war, Germany military genius lay in fighting, not in war. When it came to understanding war and waging it, Germany was hopelessly outclassed by the Allies – a situation shared by Germany’s ally Japan. All Germany managed to achieve in two world wars was its encirclement and attrition by enemies with superior resources.

 

WORLD WAR

Well, obviously.

 

STILL FIGHTING THE WAR

Not so obviously – although the two world wars were essentially Europe’s new Thirty Years War 1914-1945. And of course beyond that, there was the cold war – such that some historians have classed both world wars and the Cold War as the Long War 1914-1991. And beyond that…

 

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Again, well obviously – with WW2 probably the closest example in history to an actual war in black and white moral terms. To quote Bart Simpson, there are no good wars, with the following exceptions – the American Revolution, World War Two and the Star Wars trilogy.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (1) H.P. Willmott – The Great Crusade

Posted on by

Raising the flag over the Reichstag – one of the most iconic images of WW2 (as photographed by Yevgeny Khaldei and in public domain), used for the cover of the first edition of the book (and also for its own article on Wikipedia “Raising a flag over the Reichstag”)

 

(1) HP WILLMOTT –

THE GREAT CRUSADE: A NEW COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR (1989)

 

The best single “volume history of the Second World War in its coverage of all the major themes and all the fronts”.

And for that matter, as you can tell by my placement of it in first place, my favorite volume of history for any subject – the one most firmly embedded in my psyche and the one to which I return the most, particularly on the subject of WW2, with insights or nuggets on almost every page.

For example, comparing the Pacific War to the American Civil War, with the former having uncanny parallels to the latter, even down to the two main American (or Union) offensive directions of each, with Imperial Japan similarly doomed to defeat as the Confederacy and for much the same reasons.

Or the transposition between Germany and the Soviet Union in military proficiency, such that by 1944-1945 the latter arguably equalled or surpassed the former at its peak, while Germany matched many of the same failings for the Soviets back in 1941.

Indeed, most of my own views of the Second World War originate in this book. Much of that is due to the style of Willmott, a strangely neglected or overlooked military historian – to quote excerpts from an Amazon review:

“Interesting, insightful, revelatory…Willmott is Willmott: never less than lucid and coherent, even when his work descends into the “mere chronicle” of army, corps and divisional movements that more properly belong to purely military history…magisterial is no more than an appropriate term with which to describe Willmott’s informative – indeed, transformative – and succinctly and clearly expressed synthesis of the knowledge on such a wide subject.”

Above all, my view of the Second World War originates in Willmott’s main theme or thesis of the book, which he was nice enough to state at the outset – debunking the myth of German military excellence. Indeed, he cheekily adapts Oscar Wilde’s famous quote from The Importance of Being Earnest – to lose one world war may be regarded as misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness

This might seem paradoxical given the extent of Germany’s initial victories – and the Allied effort required to reverse those victories and defeat Germany – but almost as paradoxically, Willmott argues this just illustrates his theme, that Germany could succeed to that extent but still lose.

However, the paradox is resolved by Willmott’s argument, which he repeatedly demonstrates throughout the book, that “the German military genius was in fighting not in war, and along with her Japanese ally Germany was the only great power that did not understand the nature of war.”

One might add that this is the converse of the art of war, at least according to Sun Tzu – and of the Allies in general and the United States in particular. As Willmott observes, in terms of actually waging war, Germany was hopelessly outclassed by the Allies, matched only by the similar hopelessness of their ally Japan.

Willmott has yet another striking insight in his speculation about the reason for this – that the very success of Bismarck, the one German leader who had understood war, that is the limits of military and national power, “blinded successive generations of Germans to these realities because they saw only his military victories”.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Friday Night Funk – Top 10 Music (Mojo & Funk): (5) Calvin Harris – Feel So Close

Posted on by

 

Opening (title) shot from music video

 

(5) FUNK: CALVIN HARRIS –
FEEL SO CLOSE (2011)
B-Side: How Deep is Your Love (2015)

 

“And there’s no stopping us right now
I feel so close to you right now”

Calvin Harris falls in the electronic dance funk end of the funk scale – electronic dance music or house, sometimes termed electro pop or nu disco. He’s been a prolific producer or mixer of electronic dance music since his debut album I Created Disco in 2007 – both in the sense of number of singles and also in the profile of those singles, rising to international prominence with his third album 18 Months.

Of course, it’s electronic dance music, so don’t look for lyrical depth – or much in the way of lyrics in general, as the lyrics tend to be fairly basic verse mixed through the music. However, it is irresistibly funky.

And as for the balance of my Top 10 Calvin Harris songs:
(3) You Used to Hold Me (2010)
(4) Drinking from the Bottle (2013)
(5) Thinking About You (2013)
(6) Under Control (2013)
(7) Summer (2014)
( 8 ) Outside (2014)
(9) My Way (2016)
(10) Stay With Me (2020)

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (2) Mongol Empire

Posted on by

The Mongol Empire map by Astrokey 44 as part of an animated map sequence for Wikipedia “Mongol Empire” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

 

(2) MONGOL EMPIRE (1206 – 1502)

 

“With Heaven’s aid I have conquered for you a huge empire. But my life was too short to achieve the conquest of the world”

Only just though – as the Mongols were a horse blitzkrieg across Eurasia, conquering the second largest empire in history (second only to the British Empire) and the largest contiguous land empire.

The founder of the Mongol Empire – Temujin, better known as Genghis Khan – was the best military and political leader of his era, or arguably any era. He succeeded in unifying the Mongol tribes as the nucleus of his empire, which at his death stretched from northern China through Central Asia to Iran and the outskirts of European Russia. In doing so, the Mongols conquered glittering states along the Silk Road in central Asia that barely anyone remembers because the Mongols wiped them out so thoroughly – the Khwaraziman Empire of Iran and the Qara Khitai.

His successors extended the Mongol Empire to almost every corner of Eurasia – “the 13th-century section in the history books of all countries in the region can be summed up as Mongols paid a visit and wiped us out”.

In the Middle East, they besieged and sacked Baghdad, the center of Islamic power for half a millennium, occupying as far as parts of Syria and Turkey, with raids advancing as far as Gaza in Palestine, where they were stopped in the battle of Ain Jalut by the Mamluks of Egypt.

In East Asia, Genghis had largely defeated the Jin Empire in northern China – his successors finished it off and conquered the southern Sung Empire as well. The latter was most famously by Kublai Khan – and in Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree. They also invaded Korea, Burma and Vietnam – the last did not go so well, as neither did their naval invasions of Java and Japan.

And of course they also conquered Russia and invaded central Europe, defeating Poland and Hungary, and raiding the Balkans and Holy Roman Empire.

The Mongol Empire was too big to last as a unified polity, fragmenting much like the Macedonian Empire – although unlike the latter, it endured for about half a century in real terms (or a century in nominal terms) after the death of its founder before it was divided up into four khanates among his dynastic successors.

 

 

DECLINE & FALL

The empire of Genghis and his successors somewhat resembles that of Alexander and his successors, albeit more enduring and formidable as a single empire, outlasting the death of Genghis until his grandsons fell out among themselves.

Initially, it was divided up into four khanates, three of which were formidable imperial states of themselves – the Golden Horde essentially ruling over Russia, the Ilkhanate essentially ruling over Persia, and the Yuan Dynasty essentially ruling over China and Mongolia itself. The Chagatai Khanate was still pretty formidable, ruling over central Asia, but just seems the runt of the litter in comparison.

From there, it’s an increasingly bewildering array of various successors to rival those of the Macedonian Empire, with all but the Yuan Dynasty quietly merging with local Islamic or Turkic dynasties.

The Ilkhanate endured least well, disintegrating with the reign and death of its last khan from 1316.

The Yuan Dynasty probably fared next best – its glittering height under Kublai Khan ended with his death in 1294, but it endured under his successors until it was defeated and ejected from China by the Ming in 1368, although they then ruled over their Mongolian homeland for almost three centuries as the Northern Yuan Dynasty.

The Chagatai Khanate proved to be quiet achievers, or at least those that claimed to be its successors did – Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, saw himself as the restorer of Genghis’ empire and took a damn good swing at it, with one of his successors founding the Mughal Empire in India. The Chagatai Khanate itself continued as the Eastern Chagatai Khanate, before breaking up further and being conquered in turn, with the last khan deposed in 1705.

The Golden Horde was the most enduring, albeit in states ever more distant from Genghis’ empire or dynasty, remaining a powerful state until about 1396 – when invasion and defeat by the Timurid Empire saw it demoted from Golden to merely Great, before falling in 1502 and being succeeded by various Turkic khanates. The two most notable states, the Crimean Tatars and Kazakh Khanate, survived until 1783 and 1847 respectively, when they were conquered by Russia, although I’m going with the fall of the Golden or Great Horde as the end date of empire.

 

THE MONGOL EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, the Mongol Empire never fell! Mongol states – not least Mongolia – survive to the present day. Unleash the Horde!

Genghis himself survives in the disproportionate population of the world that can be traced to him. And then there are those that claimed to be his spiritual successors – with the last aspiring Khan as the eccentric Baron Ungern-Sternberg, who deserves a top 10 list of his own for his wildly insane ambitions.

A more serious argument might be made for Russia (and the Soviet Union) as their true spiritual successors, with many of its distinctive political features originating from the Mongol yoke.

 

THE SUN NEVER SETS

From Danube to the Pacific, the Mongol Empire deserves its title for global empire, as well as world empire for its enduring influence – we live in a Mongol-made world.

 

EVIL EMPIRE

And how!

Perhaps not surprisingly, our top three empires would also be among the leading contenders people would advance for an entry if one were to compile a Top 10 Evil Empires – probably even the top three there as well.

History has tended to overlook the positive or even progressive aspects of the Mongol Empire and its Pax Mongolica, but it would rank high as evil empire for the sheer scale of destruction they wrought, which can only aptly be described as apocalyptic, exceeding even the Second World War relative to world population.

As examples, the Iranian plateau didn’t fully recover its population until the 20th century, while some areas in central Asia remained disproportionately populated. The depopulation was such that wild animal species exploded in population and the regrowth of forests caused a noticeable change in climate.

And particularly since we mentioned it for the Spanish Empire, the horseman of the apocalypse that loomed largest was pestilence – the Black Death, spread both inadvertently by trade within the Mongol Empire and deliberately within its warfare, wiping out anywhere from 30% to 60% of the European population.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (2) Cold War

Posted on by

NATO vs Warsaw Pact 1949-1990 by Discombobulates for Wikipedia “Cold War” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

(2) COLD WAR (1945-1991)

 

Cold War? Can I get a Cool War instead?

The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union that defined much of the twentieth century, where the logic of avoiding directly fighting each other was reinforced by the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons.

Cold wars are a recurring theme in history. Even before modern firepower or nuclear weapons, states often sought to avoid outright war with other states, particularly where they were evenly matched. Wars are costly and destructive, especially big or long wars of attrition, and even when you win, you often still lose. There’s a reason Pyrrhic victory is a term.

Of course, the majority of wars in history have been hot wars, in which states have actively fought each other, but even those have often been preceded or punctuated by periods of cold war, albeit where the participants often maneuvered against each other for advantage.

The period from 1933 to 1939 might be regarded as a three-sided cold war before the biggest hot war in history, in which Nazi Germany and other fascist states, the western democracies, and the Soviet Union all maneuvered with or against each other.

The Great Game between the British and Russian empires in the nineteenth to twentieth centuries might be regarded as another cold war. Indeed, in many ways the Cold War replayed much of the same territory, literally and metaphorically.

The Roman-Persian Wars obviously did not persist for six centuries entirely as active fighting or hot war, but were punctuated by cold war. Indeed, the Romans and Persians might well have paid more heed to cold war logic of avoiding directly fighting each other, since their exhaustion from war led to their defeat or conquest by the new antagonist of the Arabs under the banner of Islam.

The Greek-Persian Wars offer a better example of cold war, although there the cold war logic for the Persians arose from their costly defeats at the hands of the Greeks. Indeed, the Persians arguably did much better in their cold war strategy of supporting the Greek city states fighting each other.

Of course, that might be said of cold war strategies in general, with states doing better than they would directly fighting their antagonists. Imperial Germany would have done better if it had waged cold war rather than world war, as would have any successor that showed more restraint or strategy than the Nazi regime.

But of course, there’s no cold war like the Cold War.

 

ART OF WAR

Ironically, cold war strategy is the essence of the art of war of winning without fighting. Which the Americans and their allies did, although not without some lapses on their part – most notably land wars in Asia. Indeed, it might be said the Second World War and Cold War were the peak of the American art of war.

Although I’m not sure what Sun Tzu would have thought of his art of war being applied from the logic of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction.

 

WORLD WAR

Not least in how pervasive it was, both in the forms of its conflict, including hot wars by proxy, and its extent (as well as its stakes, that threatened the world itself). The Cold War extended through more of the world than the Second World War, which had largely left sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America unaffected, although ironically not so much Europe, despite the masses of military force the opposing sides gathered there

 

STILL FIGHTING THE WAR

We’re all Cold Warriors now. Not against the Soviet Union of course but pundits always seem to be declaring the new or next cold war.

Also the same logic of avoiding direct fighting has persisted even after the end of the Cold War, such that it might be regarded as the default standard of modern conflict. Of course it looms largest between nuclear-armed states, but also arises from just how costly it is to deploy modern firepower, or even to engage in low-level conflicts against insurgencies or guerilla combatants.

 

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

I’ve always been a Cold Warrior – as in believing in the morality of its cause and the necessity of its purpose as a war that needed to be fought, although not necessarily in all aspects of the way that it was fought.

So…USA! USA! USA!

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (2) John Keegan – A History of Warfare

Posted on by

 

(2) JOHN KEEGAN –

A HISTORY OF WARFARE (1993)

 

The magnum opus of one of the foremost military historians of our time – a global history of war from prehistory to nuclear weapons. (Although one might also argue his magnum opus was his trilogy of The Face of Battle, The Mask of Command, and The Price of Admiralty).

 

After an introductory section “War in Human History”, Keegan organizes his history in broad thematic sections invoking the four classical elements but as the four elements of war, albeit also more or less in chronological sequence – “Stone”, “Flesh”, “Iron” and “Fire”.

 

Between each section is an “interlude”, not so much in chronological sequence but with a focus on recurring aspects – or problems – throughout the history of warfare, respectively limitations on warmaking, fortification, armies, and logistics and supply. For example, the interlude on ärmies dealt with the basic problem of – and limited number of means for – actually raising armies.

 

The titles of those elemental sections speak for themselves – with fire obviously corresponding to the defining characteristic of modern warfare increasingly relying on forms of combustion or energy, from gunpower through the internal combustion engine to nuclear weapons.

 

A personal highlight was the book’s examination of the conquests of the various “horse peoples”, the high point of which were the Mongols, always a subject of fascination for me. Something that has always resonated in my mind ever since is Keegan’s opinion that much of the mobile tactical skill of the horse peoples originated in the same techniques they used on their herds except on their adversaries instead.

 

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)