basileus said:First of all, maintain9ng a strong sense of unity in their emnpire, in stead of dividing it into rival khanates.
To achieve this, they needed a deep sacralization of the figure of the Great Khan, and probably the creation ex novo of an own jihadist religion.
But at their very best, they could conqur the Asian South-East, Northern India, the Arab-Islamic core in the Middele east and Egypt, besides reducing most of Central Europe to vassal state. I think they couldn't do more than this.
Max Sinister said:Let's not forget Japan. They tried it twice and failed both times, but only because of "Divine wind".
Max Sinister said:And how well would samurais, i.e. swordsmen do against the Mongol bowmen? They were the best on earth...
The Huns were doing pretty well until Atilla died, weren't they?wkwillis said:Mongol bows were composites of horn, wood, glue, etc. If it get's wet, it stops working and they go home. Why do you think us Hungarians didn't conquer Europe and enslave all the lesser races?
They could have taken the Mediterranean shoreline and islands, maybe more of India, but not much.
wkwillis said:Mongol bows were composites of horn, wood, glue, etc. If it get's wet, it stops working and they go home. Why do you think us Hungarians didn't conquer Europe and enslave all the lesser races?
They could have taken the Mediterranean shoreline and islands, maybe more of India, but not much.