Why were the Mongols so destructive? How were they able to take on and essentially destroy the scientific capitals of the world in the middle east? How did they create such a dominant military presence in Asia, essentially forcing their presence in the gene pool in countries that are now the likes of Pakistan and India?
>>922436
The Mongs had 0 to do with the Mughal Dynasty.
The only thing "Mongol" about it was its founder, Babur, being descended from Genghis Khan via his great great grandmama's side. Babur himself did not think he was a Mongol, but a Muslim Prince. In fact he detested mongols as they were barbarians.
>>922436
Multiculturism and open border policies weakened those nations that promoted such liberal values. So its no surprise those are the nations that fell first to the mongols, even with all their "advanced" science and knowledge.
>>922455
Multiculturalism? As far as I know, the middle east , up to Iran, maybe even Afghanistan has for the most part of history been pretty multicultural. Multiculturalism has always been at the very heart of those societies, as race didn't make a difference in your social class. I am aware that slavery was obviously present in history, but race wasn't a factor, and darker skinned peoples weren't considered lower races on a pan-societal level. Over simplifying the situation and blaming "multiculturalism" and "open border policies" is pretty ignorant.
To be fair the mongoloid genes in the middle eastern genepool probably compensated for all the destruction in the long run.
Pure breed peninsular arabs are very low IQ
>>922479
>And it still doesn't occur to you that those same countries still are complete shitholes ravaged by sectarian violence and war?
Let's throw aside geopolitics, foreign policy, economics, history of the region post WW1 and the dismantlement of the Ottoman empire. Let's throw that in the trash and blame multiculturalism and Islam. Back to /pol/ with you.
>>922455
>Unironically using "multicultural" and "liberal" for Premodern States.
Cancer.
