/u/krnkid26 asked this 21 days ago and didn't get a response (found via search) and i thought it was an interesting question.

At it's height, the mongol empire was the biggest empire by area that had ever existed. It owned the most profitable route in the middle ages - the silk route and reaped great profits off of it.

There are interesting factoids about mongols like:

1. 0.25% of all world's population are direct descendants of Gengis Khan

2. Mongols killed so many chinese during their chinese conquest that it effected the global climate because all the abandoned and deserted villages, towns and cities were reclaimed by nature and forests grew where chinese towns once were.

3. They were the only people in the history to have successfully campaigned in the east and the west almost simultaneously against persia (Sassanid) and china (sung)and win on both fronts under Kublai khan

4. The Byzantines were really afraid of the Golden Horde and the Illkhanate always did whatever they could to maintain alliance with them... And the Byzantines were a major power (along with the holy roman empire, franks, and the genoese ofcourse) Europe in the middle ages.

5. The only force that could barely stand up to the mongols were the mamelukes and that too it was because they too were on the rise around the same time under many able generals and leaders

Mongols had many more impressive feats no other civilization could match in terms of conquest.

My question is, when the Mongol Empire fell and disintegrated, what happened to all that wealth that mongols had ? Sure since some of them integrated with China and gave birth to Korea and other with Persia that wealth went be found in China & Korea and Iran respectively. The Golden Horde died and Russia was born and the wealth of Czars explains where the wealth of the Golden Horde went.

But what about the empire in the central asia region and the current day mongolia. That never really go away did it ? But Mongolia is not really a rich nation in the world today, None of the central asian countries are. All the central asian countries have not been relevant on the world stage for hundreds of years. It seems like all it's wealth magically vanished and they were back to where they started in terms of wealth and power...just a bunch of ordinary cattle herders, going about herding in the steppe.

How and why did they accept this after experiencing all the riches in the world ? Or am I way off about the wealth of mongolia ? I mean, when you look at Eurasian history, every major civilization, even after their fall somehow remained relevant - Distinct masses of land always relevant throughout history as Empires came and went. The cities remained relevant, their history remained relevant.

For example - Macedonian Empire's remnants turned into, Byzantine Empire, to Ottoman Empire...Roman Empire turned into Italian and Genoese, Persian Empires had many dynasties and turned into Saracens Empires and into the Ottoman Empire. In India the land under Mauryas, turned into Guptas into Sultanate, into Mughals... Chinese have tonnes of Dynasties came and went.

But, nothing of that sort is advertized for the Mongols or Mongolia ? It's just seems so strange to me...

Background: I have been watching "Vikings" on The History Channel, and whenever someone went to the future teller (sorry I'm not sure what the technical name is) they licked the palm of the tellers hand at the end of the reading. So I was intrigued and googled why and the only thing that came up was the serial killer in Indiana (Which is supposedly a folklore). So I was wondering why the director added that to each future telling scene.

So i was curious of not necessarily if Ragnar Lodbrok was real but where would he of (if he did) originate? Where would he have came from? was it more like Denmark? or Norway/Sweden? I play a game called Europa Universalis 4 and with the newest DLC you can create your own country. Well i wanted to create what would of been Ragnar Lodbrok lands and try to reconquer the world through his family/ as a norse men. I just wanted a little bit of semi accuracy when choosing where to start.

What is the prevailing view concerning this among historians today?

Side note: if anyone does this and they spend a good chunk of the year writing them, it would be an interesting way to spend time.

So in my Apush class this week, we discussed America's involvement. The main points we discussed were 1) how during Americas neutral phase in 1914-1918 many states originally, if they did want war, sided with the central powers because of their heavy immigrant population, and anger at Britain for the Ireland stuff and the insane blockades they were making (even though their trade with us increased around 300%) and 2) eventually, our involvement did turn the tide of the war because it looked like, since Germany was now fighting on one front, britain and France were in a stalemate that they probably weren't going to win, but possibly could've and 3) that many US ships had been sunken by germany, but america did not care that badly until the lusitania which our teacher said it has never been full confirmed if it had munitions or not.That was my history class. Then I was the crash course Apush video (#30) and john green immediately pokes fun at how the US didn't do anything, and that from the beginning of our neutral stance, we supported Britain because we got over our past gripes, I didn't watch the whole video because I got kind of annoyed at the contradicting information and didn't want have both facts rolling around in my head, so can anyone clear up as FACTUALLY as that can which points are accurate and which are more biased?

Did he even like Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle, and so on? Did he have any personal friendships with them or was simply just acquaintances? Did he not like any of them? Is there one he probably liked the best?

Referring to ancient Hawaiians here.

I was just thinking today, looking a glove over, Hawaii is so faraway from the United States. It's far from everything; and it's just in the middle of nowhere.

So how did people ever get there to begin with??

I'm talking real ancient, like, Hawaiians that America conquered. Were they the first to be there? If not, what about the people that they conquered? There had to be some sort of migration or first discovery or something. But it was so long ago and there is so much distance! Please lay some knowledge on me!

Especially after the nukes were used were there any calls for retaliation with Japans own "super weapons", such as the bio weapons used in China?

I would understand them wanting retribution for Hiroshima so did any of these "plans" ever come close to fruition?

You always hear just about the camps and everything but what was holding germany up? Who were the workers?

I am doing an assignment for speech and I found an article I will be using. This article is talking about the oral communication in Russia in the 1860s-1880s. I get what the article is talking about, so I don't need help with this assignment, but I am wondering if someone might be able to help me understand exactly what Municipal Dumas and Zemstvos are and the historical significance behind them. Generally, I understand a concept better when the etymology is explained to me, but right now I am having trouble with it despite looking them up on my own.

I'm uncertain as to how I should phrase the question. I'm mainly curious as to what brought about the school uniform. For example" Was it a rapid change that was brought about by a certain someone or did it just kinda evolve into what we have today?

After having worked so long together to end the reign of warlords, surely there would have been something of a sentiment to see a peaceful divide of the two parties? Or the establishment of a more pluralistic system that would allow the two to continue to cooperate?

Why was a purge of the Communist members seen as the optimal solution by the Chiang Kai-Shek and his leadership?

Forgive me if I have displayed misunderstanding on the topic in my question; that's why I'm asking it :)

Like the Earl of Pembroke marrying the daughter of an Indian prince. Or a Spanish visconte marrying an Inca princess.

Did racism prvent this from happening?

It seems counter intuitive to devote time and energy to crops that don't offer a lot of bang for their buck.