What next after Mosul and Raqqa?

[A'isha]

Islamic leaders fight who is Mohaneds true heir - no connection to Islam.
Christian secular king abuses the authority of the Catholic church to eradicate subjects he suspects if disloyalty - Christianity is to blame.

You're hypocrycy personified.

McHrozni

A dynastic civil war (typified by military clashes between the armies of the claimants) over political control of the early caliphate is purely religious in nature, while an official of the Catholic Church persecuting, torturing, and executing individual religious heretics is merely the result of a secular king wanting to eliminate "disloyal" citizens for purely secular reasons, so that it's entirely unfair to talk about Torquemada's actions without also bringing up the fitnah wars?

And this is what makes me a hypocrite who has double standards? I see...

 

[dudalb]

I highly doubt you have read the Qur'an.

Everything Jules said about the Koran could be equally applied to the Old Testament.......

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, tenacious enough to keep Mosul's from having been retaking completely so far, but they're still losing.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj....reasingly-isolated-in-mosul-battle-1489676887

They don't care, since the end of the battle won't be anything like a victory, other than a Pyrrhic one. "We had to destroy the city to save it." Where have I seen this movie before?

Most of it is liberated, thankfully without the levels of destruction seen in Aleppo. It should fall within a few weeks. Debating what happens after that is warranted, I think. A major reversal by ISIS is just too unlikely at this point.

My dear sir, I am not investing in real estate futures in Mosul. Should I be?

I highly doubt you have read the Qur'an.

Given that I have, I agree with you that Jules has not. Mostly, for me, it was an occasionally interesting sleeping pill. but perhaps that is due to reading it in an English translation rather than in archaic Arabic.

I find it telling that some of the most rabid pro-ISIS 'scholars' are those who converted from other religions or grew up in the west. They seem to have this romantic vision, almost, and are in demand because they have studied the Qu'ran, speak Arabic fluently and can act as translators into English as part of the propaganda machine.

Hmm, ya noticed that too.

 

[McHrozni]

A dynastic civil war (typified by military clashes between the armies of the claimants) over political control of the early caliphate is purely religious in nature, while an official of the Catholic Church persecuting, torturing, and executing individual religious heretics is merely the result of a secular king wanting to eliminate "disloyal" citizens for purely secular reasons, so that it's entirely unfair to talk about Torquemada's actions without also bringing up the fitnah wars?

This is not what I claimed. I'll need to add a straw man to your list. Keep it up.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Everything Jules said about the Koran could be equally applied to the Old Testament.......

This is a very common mistake, equating the Old Testament to the Koran and claiming "Christianity is no better". Setting aside the historical fact of which of these two civilizations enabled you to speak freely to criticize it and developed the medium to send this message around the world in a blink of an eye for the time being, there's a reason for the adjective "Old" in the name. There's also a "New" testament, obviously. Old and new could in this case be substituted with "Obsolete" and "Current". Pre-Christianity Jews were certainly little better than other civilizations they had contacts with.

Islam doesn't have separate sections for old documentation and new rules and its rule book is poorly organized by length, rather than chronologically (ISO wasn't a thing back then), but it says quite explicitly that later commands override the older ones when they clash, and we're able to deduce which parts are earlier and which parts are older. A major section of Islamic theology is devoted to discerning which verse comes before or after another verse. Given the situation there's nothing wrong with having such a rule, in the days where obtaining information was hard and keeping track of it all harder still, rules like that are at least logical if not downright necessary.

Here's the catch you probably won't address at all: New testament does not endorse violence, only the Old testament does that. Older parts of the Koran reject violence, whereas the newer parts demand it. The same goes for history of Islam, for Hadiths and such.

In all, you can't use the Old testament to show Christianity is "just as bad as Islam" or anything of the like without being either ignorant or else a lying hypocrite. You could say other things perhaps, but not this.

Furthermore, if you're going to excuse the ills of Islam with another religion, I recommend you pick a softer target. As I mentioned earlier it was the Christian civilization, after all, that brought us human rights, democracy and technology needed to even make the debate worthwhile, as opposed to struggling in the fields for bare survival. If you're going into comparative theology, you must address that as well. If Islam receives all the credit for the few modest developments during the Islamic golden age, shouldn't Christianity be also given credit for at least the Renaissance and the four technological revolutions in the past two centuries, as well as humanist advances, which when combined make any country from any earlier era an oppressive impoverished hellhole next to a modern state?

I usually recommend you put Islam next to Mesoamerican beliefs that required regular sacrifices of anything from little children whom they tortured before they were executed to men captured in combat. Those beliefs were much, much worse than either Christianity or Islam ever were. If you want to make Islam look good, you might as well pick those beliefs and not harder targets like Christianity. I struggle to see the logic behind the reasoning, after all it's not like the ills of other religions somehow excuse or lessen the ills of Islam, but if you're adamant at pursuing this line of thought, you might as well go all the way. It'll make the argument a little less pathetic at least.

McHrozni

 

[TubbaBlubba]

As I mentioned earlier it was the Christian civilization, after all, that brought us human rights, democracy and technology needed to even make this debate worthwhile, as opposed to struggling in the fields for bare survival. If you're going into comparative theology, you must address that as well.

Address what? Why the West is generally more advanced?

I can think of a couple:

- The ME is more ethnically diverse, leading to more inter-tribal conflicts

- There is also lower population density and more difficult logistics in the ME.

- The Mongol invasions, and the subsequent Turko-Mongol invasion (yes, I know the Turko-Mongols were muslim) and the heritage of cruel imperial conquests (lasting at least until Nader Shah).

- The emergence of nationalism and resulting decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire

- Eventually intervention and encroachment by then technologically superior Western powers.

 

[McHrozni]

Address what? Why the West is generally more advanced?

No, address why the development skyrocketed in the West from the 17th century onward and not in, say, ME. Why was the scientific method invented in the West and not in ME?

I can think of a couple:

- The ME is more ethnically diverse, leading to more inter-tribal conflicts

- There is also lower population density and more difficult logistics in the ME.

- The Mongol invasions, and the subsequent Turko-Mongol invasion (yes, I know the Turko-Mongols were muslim) and the heritage of cruel imperial conquests (lasting at least until Nader Shah).

- The emergence of nationalism and resulting decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire

- Eventually intervention and encroachment by then technologically superior Western powers.

I won't even attempt to dissect the falsehoods presented here. I'll just point out one: ME more ethnically diverse than Europe? Have you seen a map of European languages and dialects? The one before 19th century? Europe was incredibly diverse in language, government and even religion from the Middle ages onward, if you're going to claim this diversity was greater in ME to the extent it made a difference, you're going to have provide some firm evidence of that. Good luck.

That aside, you're making the same mistake as done in Guns, germs and steel, you compare two civilizations, note some of differences between them, the geography and history, and claim all differences stem from those, and only those differences, without any attempt to prove how those differences worked.

In other words, why didn't China outpace Europe, then? If you can't explain that little fact using the same arguments as above, your hypothesis is most probably false.

McHrozni

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I won't even attempt to dissect the falsehoods presented here. I'll just point out one: ME more ethnically diverse than Europe? Have you seen a map of European languages and dialects? The one before 19th century? Europe was incredibly diverse in language, government and even religion from the Middle ages onward, if you're going to claim this diversity was greater in ME to the extent it made a difference, you're going to have provide some firm evidence of that. Good luck.

I think even just Indo-Iranian languages were about as plentiful as all other indo-European languages a thousand years ago. Then there's Turkic, Semitic... Of course, that's a very rough measure of ethnodiversity. I grant you that it would be a difficult thing to prove. However the ME (Iran, specifically) being where the six or seven European founding tribes originated from is generally a strong indicator that the region will be quite diverse. India is diverser still, and Africa even more so.

That aside, you're making the same mistake as done in Guns, germs and steel, you compare two civilizations, note some of differences between them, the geography and history, and claim all differences stem from those, and only those differences, without any attempt to prove how those differences worked.

Prove why mountainy, sparsely populated areas with a harsh climate develop more slowly than others? Prove how the Mongol slaughter of Iranian peoples impeded development? Prove how Genghis Khan and Timur Lang were nevertheless idolized by many in the region? Prove how Russian and British incursions and encroachement led to the Qajar dynasty's isolationism? How the rise of nationalism weakened the Ottoman Empire?

In other words, why didn't China outpace Europe, then? If you can't explain that little fact using the same arguments as above, your hypothesis is most probably false.

McHrozni

China (Eastern regions, historically) was and is indeed more densely populated than Europe. The climate is also fairly similar. I think the soil quality might be a bit worse, but nevertheless.

However, the Chinese also suffered badly from the Mongol invasion. Their iron industry and agriculture took heavy hits, and so on. For various misguided reasons, they went on to adopt a policy of trade isolationism and stagnated.


I am not saying that industrialization was inevitable in Europe, but it was clearly the region where you would expect it to happen first. If there's one contingency I think mattered for the 17:th century, I suppose it would be the recognition of the nation-state as the natural unit of diplomacy.

 

[McHrozni]

I think even just Indo-Iranian languages were about as plentiful as all other indo-European languages a thousand years ago. Then there's Turkic, Semitic... Of course, that's a very rough measure of ethnodiversity. I grant you that it would be a difficult thing to prove. However the ME (Iran, specifically) being where the six or seven European founding tribes originated from is generally a strong indicator that the region will be quite diverse. India is diverser still, and Africa even more so.

Oh, ME is diverse too, no doubt about it.

The thing is, I didn't claim ME wasn't diverse. It was your claim that ME was more diverse than Europe to the point where it made a major difference in the amount of tribal conflict, which held ME down considerably more than Europe. This is simply false.

Prove why mountainy, sparsely populated areas with a harsh climate develop more slowly than others? Prove how the Mongol slaughter of Iranian peoples impeded development? Prove how Genghis Khan and Timur Lang were nevertheless idolized by many in the region?

No, you need to prove these it was these and only these differences that dominated history of the past 500-600 years, and not differences such as organization of society, literacy or interest in fields other than religion. You also need to explain why European wars of religion weren't as devastating as Mongol invasions, despite being just as brutal and imposing a similar human, social and economic cost.

Sure, Iranian peoples developed more slowly as a result of Mongol invasions. There is no doubt about that. But if you're going to claim that held ME down to a significant extent you need to explain why similar events in the West, which brought similar levels of devastation, didn't have the same result in the end. Please do so, or drop the argument.

I know I'm repeating myself, but good luck with that.

Prove how Russian and British incursions and encroachement led to the Qajar dynasty's isolationism? How the rise of nationalism weakened the Ottoman Empire?

By this time the course of history was already set and West was going to dominate regardless of Qajar dynasty and Ottoman downfall.

China (Eastern regions, historically) was and is indeed more densely populated than Europe. The climate is also fairly similar. I think the soil quality might be a bit worse, but nevertheless.

Nevertheless what? You can't just end your argument there. How come these factors didn't result in China overtaking Europe in the many centuries it had, by your standards, far better conditions to create an advanced industrial civilization. It had low levels of tribal conflict, it was safe from foreign invasions for the most part and had broadly similar levels of population density and soil fertility. You can't just dismiss that by saying "nevertheless", you need to explain what was different in China compared to Europe, seeing as the dominating factors which you claimed made Europe distinct from ME weren't present in China. You also need to explain why the effect of whatever was different was so strong in China as to completely prevail, but those factors must not be present in Europe and ME if you want the overreaching reason to be tribal conflict, geography, population density and foreign invasions. You managed to scratch the surface later on.

However, the Chinese also suffered badly from the Mongol invasion. Their iron industry and agriculture took heavy hits, and so on. For various misguided reasons, they went on to adopt a policy of trade isolationism and stagnated.

We're coming to the crux of the problem. Mongol invasions hurt China, yes, but this wasn't orders of magnitude worse than European wars of religion going on at roughly the same time, as they would have to be in order to explain the difference. It was the national policy of isolationism and what they called (and still call) "stability", but you used the more accurate word, stagnation.

China didn't overtake Europe because of fundamentally flawed policy choices made by its' own rulers. Europe overtook China by large margins because of fundamentally good policy choices it made in the centuries prior. It wasn't an accident of geography or of foreign invaders or devastating wars and civil wars - England in particular had more than its' share of those and yet it was one of the main drivers behind the technological revolutions that changed the face of Europe and the world, especially from 17th century onward. Netherlands is a second example, after decades of warfare it emerged as one of the major global powers. France too had its' share of civil wars and unrest, and it emerged strong and united from them. Germany stands out well above even that already high background value of conflict, and yet it was one of the places where science and technology came to flourish. Spain had the largest and richest empire of all history at one time, and when it closed up (by European standards at least) due to her social structure more resistant to overall change than the structure of her neighbors, her empire fell behind and eventually it fell apart. The dominating factor was policies and functioning of state and society, of openness and looking outward, of embracing change. It wasn't caused accidents of history and geography in a confusing, random and often downright contradictory ways.

This process didn't end, it's still going on and we can still observe it. In the past 100 years China and Russia both embraced isolationism and "stability" and stagnated, weakened and decayed. China then changed the policy to one of openness, it embraced change and advanced. Russia didn't and collapsed onto itself a little more than a decade later. Two Koreas and two Germanies adopted isolationist, reactionary or open and progressive policies respectively, in both cases the open half of the nation prospered and the other half starved, it was the same story all over again. If it were history or devastation brought about by foreign invasions you wouldn't expect significantly different results in countries sharing the same history and both lacked devastating foreign invasions. Yet, here they are, as many as you like. Dominican republic and Haiti are extreme examples, Dominican republic was dominated by foreigners and open, Haiti opted for a policy of nationalism and fierce independence. Both states share the same island in the Caribbean. Dominican republic is one of the richest states in the region, Haiti is the poorest. This can not be explained by geography and it flies in the face of it being due to foreign domination of politics. It does, however, fit my theory to the maximum extent.

The theory can also make useful and testable future predictions. It predicts that Tunisia will prosper if it manages to shake off its' Islamist insurgency and open itself to Europe, it predicts that Turkey will suffer if it becomes isolated as a result of the policies of its' president. It predicts North Korea will continue to suffer unless it opens and it predicts USA and China will suffer if they close up as a result of internal bickering and problems. It predicts UK will suffer if it becomes isolated as a result of Brexit, but that it will prosper if it manages to open itself at least as much as it was in EU if not more to the rest of the world. It predicts Russia will need to reform its' society before it prospers in any meaningful way (sudden increases in price of your chief export you didn't cause don't count) and it predicts Ukraine will suffer if it fails to reform her society yet again.

All in all I find the hypothesis that it was all due to the Mongols and maybe soil fertility laughable, just as I find the claim it was all due to geography and random distribution of species in Guns, germs and steel laughable. This is just two variants of the same hypothesis, which has no predictive value, it can't be directly falsified and worst of all, it doesn't fit more than the single example it was made to fit.

I am not saying that industrialization was inevitable in Europe, but it was clearly the region where you would expect it to happen first.

From 15th century onward, yes, I agree. Before that ... not so much. I explained why above.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Islam doesn't have separate sections for old documentation and new rules and its rule book is poorly organized by length, rather than chronologically (ISO wasn't a thing back then), but it says quite explicitly that later commands override the older ones when they clash, and we're able to deduce which parts are earlier and which parts are older. A major section of Islamic theology is devoted to discerning which verse comes before or after another verse. Given the situation there's nothing wrong with having such a rule, in the days where obtaining information was hard and keeping track of it all harder still, rules like that are at least logical if not downright necessary.

Here's the catch you probably won't address at all: New testament does not endorse violence, only the Old testament does that. Older parts of the Koran reject violence, whereas the newer parts demand it. The same goes for history of Islam, for Hadiths and such.

Nope. You have no idea what abrogation actually is, how it actually works, or how it's actually used.

In all, you can't use the Old testament to show Christianity is "just as bad as Islam" or anything of the like without being either ignorant or else a lying hypocrite. You could say other things perhaps, but not this.

"Islam is defined by more than a collection of practices and beliefs practiced by a majority of people who call themselves Muslims and are currently alive, it's also a series of books who all Muslims agree are Gods' word which explain us what Islam is, and any judgement of Islam must include those as well...but don't you dare use the Bible to judge Christianity!"

 

[McHrozni]

Nope. You have no idea what abrogation actually is, how it actually works, or how it's actually used.

No, I'm fully aware how it's used: Islam means whatever is convenient at that time to mean.

This is not what abrogation actually is though, it's just what you, alongside many Muslims, make it to be in order to make Islam a bit more palatable to those who consider crucifying people for making "mischief" in the land to be bad. Islam stands for many things, but consistency and principles aren't among them.

"Islam is defined by more than a collection of practices and beliefs practiced by a majority of people who call themselves Muslims and are currently alive, it's also a series of books who all Muslims agree are Gods' word which explain us what Islam is, and any judgement of Islam must include those as well...but don't you dare use the Bible to judge Christianity!"

This is inconsistent with what I wrote. Try again. Or don't, I don't mind.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

No, I'm fully aware how it's used: Islam means whatever is convenient at that time to mean.

This is not what abrogation actually is though, it's just what you, alongside many Muslims, make it to be in order to make Islam a bit more palatable to those who consider crucifying people for making "mischief" in the land to be bad. Islam stands for many things, but consistency and principles aren't among them.

Again, nope. Abrogation has a quite well-defined (and rather complex) set of rules to it. Maybe you should try reading a book about it sometime.

This is inconsistent with what I wrote.

Hardly.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The point is that there are so many confounding factors and plausible explanations with fundamental effects on social development like the quality of land use and agriculture (big political issues in any country), as well as major events, that we do not need Islam to explain the differences. It is up to you to demonstrate and develop controls that show Islam in general as a decisive factor.

From 15th century onward, yes, I agree. Before that ... not so much. I explained why above.

McHrozni

Yes, maybe. That would be the era of the Timurid empire, meaning that most of the Middle East had just been conquered by devastatingly brutal tribal warfare. We are talking scorched earth and deliberate destruction of society itself - that lasts.

The Hundred Years' war is estimated to have cost between 800,000-3M lives. The Mongol invasion 40-70M. Tamerlane's conquests 8-20M.

Only in the 30 years' war would Europe see numbers like Tamerlane's conquests, and only WWII the Mongol invasions. There was nothing even CLOSE to comparable in Europe in the 15th century.

But no, of course it must be Islam

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I also don't understand your insistence on predictive value. History explains the past, it does not, in general, predict the future. Since you are asking about why historical events played out the way they did, attacking the "predictive value" of a hypothesis is absurd. If I had a hypothesis about the rise of the Ottoman Empire, would you claim that "predictive value" was necessary there too?

 

[McHrozni]

The point is that there are so many confounding factors and plausible explanations with fundamental effects on social development like the quality of land use and agriculture (big political issues in any country), as well as major events, that we do not need Islam to explain the differences. It is up to you to demonstrate and develop controls that show Islam in general as a decisive factor.

If you were to read my response you'd notice I explained Islam isn't even a direct factor. The direct factors are xenophobia, resistance to change, unwillingness to challenge the established dogma and resistance to advancement that threatens the established social order. Islam is a causative agent in an indirect manner, it cultivates feelings of superiority and xenophobia, it certainly doesn't invite challenges to its' dogmas.

I made a number of predictions, find me a state in history that doesn't fit what I wrote - you need to find a closed society, resistant to change that outpaced a neighbor open to change. I'm not aware of any such examples in history, are you?

Yes, maybe. That would be the era of the Timurid empire, meaning that most of the Middle East had just been conquered by devastatingly brutal tribal warfare. We are talking scorched earth and deliberate destruction of society itself - that lasts.

The Hundred Years' war is estimated to have cost between 800,000-3M lives. The Mongol invasion 40-70M. Tamerlane's conquests 8-20M.

The Hundred years' war was fought in France, the 800,000-3 million lives all came from a relatively small geographical area, about the size of Iraq. By contrast, Tamerlane conquered an area from Volga and Urals to the Persian gulf, an area very roughly ten times bigger than early medieval France, yet the death toll wasn't ten times that of Hundred years' war, it may have been five times bigger. France recovered from that devastation within decades, yet you clam Middle East - including the areas that never came under Tamerlane - was unable to recover in three centuries.

Never mind that large swaths of Middle East weren't taken over by Mongols. Modern Iran and Iraq were, but areas to the south and west of them were spared. Somehow they too were crippled by a war that barely touched them. Explain how please.

Mongol invasions conquered the better part of Asia and Europe and some areas recovered (Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Russia) and some didn't (Middle East). Why?

After the Mongol invasions, Turkish tribes in Asia minor were able to establish an empire, which grew into the leading European military power, it was able to conquer Hungary and threaten Vienna twice. Explain how that became possible, if the Middle East was so devastated by Mongol invasions in 13th century it wasn't able to recover. Try proving your claims by something more than mere assertions please.

Only in the 30 years' war would Europe see numbers like Tamerlane's conquests, and only WWII the Mongol invasions. There was nothing even CLOSE to comparable in Europe in the 15th century.

Not in the 15th century, but there was in the 16th and 17th, at the time when Europe saw it's greatest ascent, for the most part in the countries struck by devastating (civil) wars - England, Germany, France and the Netherlands all had terrible wars during the period, and saw their greatest ascent. Europe in the 15th century wasn't particularly advanced compared to Islamic world, whereas Europe in late 17th century already left it behind for good.

If your hypothesis was correct England, France, Germany (geographical area) and the Netherlands would all fall behind during that period and be overtaken by other countries, such as Spain and Portugal, and wouldn't grow into major world superpowers for a long time after that.

Instead the three of those who already were states became leading European powers and the third, which wasn't a unified state, saw the birth of the country that would, some 200 years later, unify Germany.

Either your hypothesis is proven false by history or you need to explain what other factors you missed. The ball is entirely in your court, make it count.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I also don't understand your insistence on predictive value.

How else do you gauge the merits of the hypothesis or theory? By who can scream the loudest, use all caps more often or use the largest font?

Since you are asking about why historical events played out the way they did, attacking the "predictive value" of a hypothesis is absurd.

I believe I made a few very testable predictions from my theory. I'm able to do it, so it's not absurd to request you provide the same. It may be difficult to come up with a theory like that, but that just means my theory has far more thought behind it than yours.

Bonus question: Is a more thought out theory more likely to be correct than a few random claims thrown around or not?

McHrozni

 

[TubbaBlubba]

How else do you gauge the merits of the hypothesis or theories? By who can scream the loudest, use all caps more often or use the largest font?

McHrozni

By the standard historical methods of inquiry.

Re: the result of the Hundred Years' war, it was localized. It was also a drawn out, stagnated conflict of comparable partners, not a massively destructive conquest.

That can probably be related to the general trend of smaller European states, rather than vast empires, which is an advantage in general.

But yes, more careful calculations would need to be done. France had a population of about 15M, England 2.5M, so at most the 100 years' war would be about 30 000 deaths per year, or 0.2%, for a total of about 20% of the population, with most of the European population unaffected.

Timur killed about 17 million in 35 years. That's about 500 000 deaths per year. I can find no estimate of how many people lived in the area; about 200M of the world's population estimated in 1500 at 350M are accounted for. If we somewhat arbitrarily assume that 50M lived in the area of the Timurid empire (For comparison, the Ottomans had 11M in 1500), we get a death rate of 1% per year, for a total of 35% of the population (actually closer to 1.5% because of how quickly the population diminishes).

I can't find a way to turn this into anything other than Tamerlane's invasions being significantly more destructive, over a shorter time. They were also known for their sheer brutality and senseless destruction, of course.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I believe I made a few very testable predictions from my theory. I'm able to do it, so it's not absurd to request you provide the same. It may be difficult to come up with a theory like that, but that just means my theory has far more thought behind it than yours.

No, it's not "far more difficult" to come up with a test that is useless for saying anything about historical events. It may be far more difficult to understand (for one of us) why your method would yield useless statistics, and why testability is a red herring.

Bonus question: Is a more thought out theory more likely to be correct than a few random claims thrown around or not?

McHrozni

I don't know, what about a question arising from a cultural superiority complex?

 

[Darth Rotor]

The fight in Mosul has nothing to do with Christianity, so I am not sure why any of you bring that up.

 

[McHrozni]

By the standard historical methods of inquiry.

The standard method to test the validity of a theory is for the theory to make predictions which are then confirmed or denied. Your hypothesis is that the devastation from Mongol and Timurid invasions was so severe the Islamic world (including areas untouched by either) was stunted or crippled well into the 17th and 18th centuries, over 500 years after the invaders were gone. I'll address that below.

But yes, more careful calculations would need to be done. France had a population of about 15M, England 2.5M, so at most the 100 years' war would be about 30 000 deaths per year, or 0.2%, for a total of about 20% of the population, with most of the European population unaffected.

Timur killed about 17 million in 35 years. That's about 500 000 deaths per year. I can find no estimate of how many people lived in the area; about 200M of the world's population estimated in 1500 at 350M are accounted for. If we somewhat arbitrarily assume that 50M lived in the area of the Timurid empire (For comparison, the Ottomans had 11M in 1500), we get a death rate of 1% per year, for a total of 35% of the population (actually closer to 1.5% because of how quickly the population diminishes).

I can't find a way to turn this into anything other than Tamerlane's invasions being significantly more destructive, over a shorter time. They were also known for their sheer brutality and senseless destruction, of course.

Sure, sure, calculate your heart out. After you're done with the calculations explain how come the Ottoman Caliphate was able to dominate the Southeastern Europe, including the combined armies of Spain, Holy Roman Empire, Poland, and a coalition of Italian states, despite all that destruction from the Timurids which supposedly stunted for many centuries the development of the region which formed the backbone of its' power.

If you can't explain that your hypothesis is most likely just worthless excuses all over again. I eagerly await your response, which probably won't be forthcoming.

McHrozni