Jebus said:So I might reply, but don't really have the time for it as long as my exams last.. But I'm going to give you a prelude: teh Mongolians did install a half-decent from of government (actually, they were culturally conquered by the areas they military conquered, especially China). I'd be damnded if I remember the dude's name, but one of the Khan's leading advisors said: "you can conquer a land on the back of a horse, but you can't govern it that way." Or somethin'.
So while the Mongolian empire wasn't as 'deeply' organised as the Roman was; the people in China -for example- weren't governed worse (in terms or organisation) than they were (or would be) under the Mandarins. Heck, maybe even better. And while their most Western conquests indeed quickly gained independance, they DID keep most of Asia... And controlled an empire that was still way larger and more populated than the Roman ever was.
That's again sort of irrelevant to the point. The Mongol lack of political organisation to the level of the Romans, and the speed at which they expanded, was what made their empire fall apart. This'll happen to any disorganised empire that expands too swift.
And as I was trying to point out "too swift" depends on how organised you are. If the mongols had a higher level of organisation, sume kind super-kamehameha-politics, they might've expanded at that rate and not collapsed so fast.
That was my whole point, I wasn't saying the mongols were completely disorganised, I was saying they were too disorganised to expand at that rate, which history proved.
I feel you somehow overshot the entire point and are historically nitpicking on things that're totally irrelevant to the point. Kind of, well, pointless, n'est-ce pas?
'cause you ain't tellin' me nothin' I didn't know yet. Biatch.