Comments by "Mint" (@mint8648) on "Knowledgia" channel.

  1. Gujarat and the rashtrakutas traded with the eastern roman empire
    15
  2. In fact the Roman Republic itself was never formally abolished. The Byzantine Empire was thus sometimes called the “Roman Republic.” See more by Anthony Kaldellis
    13
  3.  Free Speech  cringe
    12
  4. They didn’t know rome, they did know greece and macedonia though
    10
  5.  @mastermichael5779  no its impressive that mongols still had many dynasties in inner eurasia up until the 1700s
    9
  6. @Patrick Swan only british, russian empires can compare with the size of the mongol empire. the next largest empire, the qing, doesn’t even come close to half what the mongol empire ruled.
    8
  7. Cholan emperor met emirate of granada diplomats in the 13th century
    8
  8. @Patrick Swan but mongols were an outlier. it’s not normal to conquer such a vast territory within 100 years during the middle ages
    7
  9. Thank you Aurangzeb
    6
  10.  Free Speech  unbased
    6
  11. It was because of a big government, a top-heavy, overbearing, bloated bureaucracy that could not sustain the welfare programs. There was too much taxation, and archaeological excavations from Mauryan sites do not reflect an era of particular prosperity for the common people.
    5
  12. Roman Indian relations had more substance imo
    5
  13.  @cs-mi8ur  and then they used that money to buy indians to fight for them
    5
  14.  @Samuil-iq6eb  No
    4
  15.  @phunkracy  the swedish navy defeated the danes several times in the northern wars. the dutch have no baltic coast
    4
  16. They were tlaxcala who fought ottomans, not aztecs. Still pretty cool tho
    4
  17. No it wasn’t mercantilist. It was run by bureaucratically appointed military governors
    4
  18.  @genovayork2468  pointless comment
    4
  19.  @Belioyt  no
    4
  20.  @protestantwarrior1411  The Jin dynasty was officially known as the "Great Jin" at that time. Furthermore, the Jin emperors referred to their state as China, Zhongguo (中國), just as some other non-Han dynasties.[5] Non-Han rulers expanded the definition of "China" to include non-Han peoples in addition to Han people whenever they ruled China.[6] Jin documents indicate that the usage of "China" by dynasties to refer to themselves began earlier than previously thought.[7]
    4
  21. Think of it like calling America “Washington” or Russia “Moscow”, as news articles sometimes do. Referring to a country by the capital city
    3
  22.  @MrFosite  superficial
    3
  23. sweden had colonies and controlled the baltic, it was maritime power
    3
  24.  @phunkracy  they did, they had the largest navy in the baltic while prussia and poland lithuania barely had a navy, the hanseatic league was in decline, and russia had no coastline
    3
  25. That is not true at all. The abbasids were not a city state in 1258. The previous caliph (al-nasir) had expanded Abbasid borders to include most of southern and central Iraq.
    3
  26. Please delete this comment
    3
  27. it was not that populated, persia in 1650 only had 8-10 million people
    3
  28. Persians did nothing
    3
  29. No, europeans knew of india before him
    3
  30.  @Worldcitizen7777  Zero scholarly analyses available. Mostly just speculation from bloggers. Even if the map exist, it is likely based off a series of calculations, not that Indians travelled all over the world - we know that bit isn’t true, they certainly didn’t reach the Americas. Also, Rome didn’t even exist yet during the Mahabharat period.
    3
  31. Bro the Byzantines sided with the Ayyubids
    3
  32. Roman observers of the time clearly noted a difference between Latin West and Greek East
    3
  33. But it killed 60 million people
    3
  34. Genie
    3
  35.  @yeshichophel5428  the official name of Jin dynasty was Zhongguo or China
    3
  36.  @Samuil-iq6eb  Did I make the claim? The burden of proof is on you
    2
  37.  @Samuil-iq6eb  “The very name Byzantine illustrates the misconceptions to which the empire’s history has often been subject, for its inhabitants would hardly have considered the term appropriate to themselves or to their state. Theirs was, in their view, none other than the Roman Empire, founded shortly before the beginning of the Christian era by God’s grace to unify his people in preparation for the coming of his Son. Proud of that Christian and Roman heritage, convinced that their earthly empire so nearly resembled the heavenly pattern that it could never change, they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans.”
    2
  38.  @Samuil-iq6eb  So you are only claiming Byzantine is a modern historiographical term. What a pointless endeavor
    2
  39.  @genovayork2468  So you think Byzantium is correct
    2
  40.  @genovayork2468  Clearly not to the people that actually lived there…
    2
  41.  @Samuil-iq6eb  Not really
    2
  42. And later mysorean competition
    2
  43.  @nattygsbord  tbf sweden did ok in the 1780s war
    2
  44. They already had guns but wasnt as good as other civilizations
    2
  45. What were Acehnese relations with later Dai Viet like?
    2
  46.  @Worldcitizen7777  prove it
    2
  47.  @Worldcitizen7777  this just sounds like pure speculation. do you have any empirical evidence that helena told chandra gupta about rome?
    2
  48.  @Worldcitizen7777  You don’t know for sure. Helena may not even have been born in Greece, since she came from the Seleucid Empire in Persia, far from Rome. Also, history isn’t a transitive property. You’re going to need to back up your claim with a historical record that explicitly mentions such a conversation. Then again, I don’t know what I’d expect from a user who calls themselves “GAMERS.”
    2
  49.  @Worldcitizen7777  Yeah, and Vikramaditya Empire existed. Next
    2
  50.  @Worldcitizen7777  Even if it were true, which it most likely isn't, the map seems to be more of a mathematical projection done within India, not evidence that the Indians attained contact with Rome, to say nothing of Australia or the Americas
    2