We need less Presidents and Prime Ministers!

[Amazeroth]

If the Mongols had used feudalism - the kind that was used in Europe - the Mongol empire wouldn't have fallen apart.

They did, and contrary to your claims, they fell apart. Why did China remain an economic/cultural/scientific powerhouse even after the collapse of the rest of the empire? Because it was politically centralised.

Even if you're going to maintain that the system the Mongols used was some kind of feudalism, you still would have a hard time arguing that that was the reason for the fall of their empire - rather than its extreme spread and the fact that most countries/nations/political entities "dropped out" not because of feudalism, but because they overthrew the local Mongol ruler, probably because they were fed up being ruled by someone not of their own.

My point was that the Arabs did get them from the Byzantines first, which means that the Arabs wouldn't have been any more important than the Byzantines (for European culture).

Well, the Byzantines became irrelevant as soon as the works were translated. And therefore, it can be said that during most of the mediaeval period, the Arabs were more significant.

How would that make the Arabs more significant? It's not like the Byzantines then threw the works away. So if there's any significance being gained by having, understanding and evolving the classical works, both would at least be equally significant.

[LukasV]

Can we definitively say that this topic has derailed from its OP?

[catparty]

We need some country to begin invading its neighbors ala the Mongol hordes.

[EEL123]

Can we definitively say that this topic has derailed from its OP?

That's an understatement. I hear that there was a Soviet probe which was sent to orbit the moon but ended up going to the sun.

you still would have a hard time arguing that that was the reason for the fall of their empire - rather than its extreme spread and the fact that most countries/nations/political entities "dropped out" not because of feudalism, but because they overthrew the local Mongol ruler, probably because they were fed up being ruled by someone not of their own.

The Mongols failed to develop much of a centralised bureaucracy in their empire, apart from in China, where there already was one. Therefore, China remained the centre of power. How come it was that the non-Chinese areas collapsed into chaos, while China remained strong? Because the other areas, unreachable by a centralised authority, had to be delegated to local rulers. If the Mongols had completely thrown out their lifestyle, their military success would have ended there, but by that stage, military success had become a handicap because their empire was rapidly getting too big. They could have settled down and possibly their empire could have lasted for a far longer time. The reason why Mongol rulers were overthrown is the dissipation of authority. They became small quasi-states. And as we all know, it's much easier to take over a small country than in a big one.

It's not like the Byzantines then threw the works away.

Many were lost. The Arabs still kept them.

[Amazeroth]

you still would have a hard time arguing that that was the reason for the fall of their empire - rather than its extreme spread and the fact that most countries/nations/political entities "dropped out" not because of feudalism, but because they overthrew the local Mongol ruler, probably because they were fed up being ruled by someone not of their own.

The Mongols failed to develop much of a centralised bureaucracy in their empire, apart from in China, where there already was one. Therefore, China remained the centre of power. How come it was that the non-Chinese areas collapsed into chaos, while China remained strong? Because the other areas, unreachable by a centralised authority, had to be delegated to local rulers. If the Mongols had completely thrown out their lifestyle, their military success would have ended there, but by that stage, military success had become a handicap because their empire was rapidly getting too big. They could have settled down and possibly their empire could have lasted for a far longer time. The reason why Mongol rulers were overthrown is the dissipation of authority. They became small quasi-states. And as we all know, it's much easier to take over a small country than in a big one.

I thought the Mongols delegated nothing to local rulers, but always to Mongols. But even if they didn't, and even if that meant that their system could be some kind of feudalism, the fall of the I think second largest Empire ever, that was erected in a comparatively small time, never homogenous at all, and built on a system of tribute to prevent raids, doesn't say much, if anything at all, about the effectiveness fo feudalism in general.

It's not like the Byzantines then threw the works away.

Many were lost. The Arabs still kept them.

As did the Byzantines. Seriously, if you want to find a reason that the Arabs were, at that time, the more culturally vibrant than the Byzantines, you'll have to find other areas - as far as the preservation of the classic works go, they were about equal.

[EEL123]

I thought the Mongols delegated nothing to local rulers, but always to Mongols.

No, by local rulers I mean local Mongol rulers.

But even if they didn't, and even if that meant that their system could be some kind of feudalism, the fall of the I think second largest Empire ever, that was erected in a comparatively small time, never homogenous at all, and built on a system of tribute to prevent raids, doesn't say much, if anything at all, about the effectiveness fo feudalism in general.

How homogenous do you think the Roman Empire was? Or even China? What they had, and what the Mongols lacked, was a centralised government. And the system of tribute is even worse than feudalism.

[Amazeroth]

But even if they didn't, and even if that meant that their system could be some kind of feudalism, the fall of the I think second largest Empire ever, that was erected in a comparatively small time, never homogenous at all, and built on a system of tribute to prevent raids, doesn't say much, if anything at all, about the effectiveness fo feudalism in general.

How homogenous do you think the Roman Empire was? Or even China? What they had, and what the Mongols lacked, was a centralised government. And the system of tribute is even worse than feudalism.

How fast was China erected? How fast the Roman Empire? Both did take centuries to form, both were incredibly smaller than the Mongol empire, and even their centralised governments didn't save them from the hordes, be they Hunnic or Mongol. Both had continuosly problems to keep their outer provinces in order, both suffered from civil war (well, I suppose China did as well, regrettably I don't know much about Chinese history). And, but again I don't know about China, Rome was a lot more homogenous than the Mongol Empire.
And yes, the system of tribute was way worse than feudalism - which goes to show that the Mongols weren't employing feudalism, at least nothing close to what feudalism meant in medieval Europe.

But we are really getting derailed here - and I'm not even talking about the way we're off-topic - all I was saying, and I'm still saying, is that feudalism as a governing system can't be dismissed as ineffective because the Mongol Empire didn't stick.

[EEL123]

even their centralised governments didn't save them from the hordes, be they Hunnic or Mongol.

They may have been attacked and their rulers may have changed, but the integrity of their existence remained. The Mongol Empire dissolved totally. The Roman Empire only collapse when it lost that crucial element of centralisation.

And, but again I don't know about China, Rome was a lot more homogenous than the Mongol Empire.

Really? Jews and Egyptians and Gauls and Germans and Scythian and Britons and Iberians and Italians (of course) can be considered homogenous?

And yes, the system of tribute was way worse than feudalism - which goes to show that the Mongols weren't employing feudalism, at least nothing close to what feudalism meant in medieval Europe.

Actually, the tribute system was only employed on the peripheries of the Mongol Empire. The 'core', if such a term can be applied to it, was less all over the place, although it certainly wasn't centralised.

[Amazeroth]

even their centralised governments didn't save them from the hordes, be they Hunnic or Mongol.

They may have been attacked and their rulers may have changed, but the integrity of their existence remained. The Mongol Empire dissolved totally. The Roman Empire only collapse when it lost that crucial element of centralisation.

China maybe, the Roman Empire did not collapse when it lost centralisation, though. Rather like China, the structures the Roman Empire had did survive anyway - in the west, of course - if you look at the law systems of Langobards and Visigoths opposed to those of the northern Germanic nations, you can easily see that.
But that's beside the point, it just goes to show that having a centralised government, while it helps you keep things together, is not the ultimate saviour from more, shall we say, barbaric nations.

And, but again I don't know about China, Rome was a lot more homogenous than the Mongol Empire.

Really? Jews and Egyptians and Gauls and Germans and Scythian and Britons and Iberians and Italians (of course) can be considered homogenous?

Not completely homogenous, of course, but a lot more homogenous than the Mongol Empire. Gauls and Britons and Iberians (the non-phoenician ones) and part of the Italians were Celtic - a very close culture. Egyptians were hellenised, along with most of the eastern part, which would have been a cultural unification point as well. Sure, the same thing can't be said for Jews, some of the few German tribes that actually were part of the Roman Empire, or the Scythians, and some other nations, but most were either related like the Celts, or had "come up" under the same cultural ideals due to them being Greek colonies from the start, or conquered by Alexander the Great and subsequently hellenised (like Egypt).
So, of course the Roman Empire wasn't homogenous in that it was not really more than one nation - that would be a very stupid thing to claim. But it was a lot more homogenous than the Mongol one, where the only thing that united the Koreans with the Russians was that both had been steamrolled by the Mongol hordes.

And yes, the system of tribute was way worse than feudalism - which goes to show that the Mongols weren't employing feudalism, at least nothing close to what feudalism meant in medieval Europe.

Actually, the tribute system was only employed on the peripheries of the Mongol Empire. The 'core', if such a term can be applied to it, was less all over the place, although it certainly wasn't centralised.

True, but even the peripheries of the Mongol Empire were gigantic.

[EEL123]

Rather like China, the structures the Roman Empire had did survive anyway - in the west, of course - if you look at the law systems of Langobards and Visigoths opposed to those of the northern Germanic nations, you can easily see that.

Those are the legal traditions. The Roman Empire increasingly delegated power - especially military power - to 'barbarian' rulers. If that is not decentralisation, what is?

Gauls and Britons and Iberians (the non-phoenician ones) and part of the Italians were Celtic - a very close culture. Egyptians were hellenised, along with most of the eastern part, which would have been a cultural unification point as well. Sure, the same thing can't be said for Jews, some of the few German tribes that actually were part of the Roman Empire, or the Scythians, and some other nations, but most were either related like the Celts, or had "come up" under the same cultural ideals due to them being Greek colonies from the start, or conquered by Alexander the Great and subsequently hellenised (like Egypt).

I think you see these ethnic divisions as too simplified. There is very little in common nowadays between an Egyptian and a Spaniard and a Hungarian. The Celts were genetically similar, but culturally not so.