DBWI the Mongolic Tribes made a giant empire?

OK, here's the scenario: in the early thirteenth century, some Khan comes around and unites the various Turkic and Mongolic tribes. Then he conquers northern China, all of Central Asia, and parts of Iran. His successors conquer the rest of Iran and the whole middle east all the way into Asia Minor, as well as much of eastern Europe all the way into the Balkans parts of Burma and the rest of China within only two generations. They would also vassalize Korea and Vietnam during this time as well.
Plausible, or ASB?
 
That's impossible. The glorious Song Dynasty was rising and rising. There's no way some barbarians from the northern wastes could have prevented the expansion of the Emperor's rule to all of Asia after the Industrial Revolution.

If they did, that would be a bad thing. Colonization from the East is what made England the modern nation it is today.
 
This is the most ridiculous ASB scenario i've seen in awhile, the Mongolic peoples where only united a few times and in those few times they only truly succeeded at conquering bits of northern china and fighting with the Jurchen a lot, no way could they manage all of that (although maybe if you gave the right POD they may have been able to take over all of Northern China, they would Sinicize quickly but its still possible).
 
Here is a map I made, depicting the conquests of the Mongols 2 generations after unification:
genghis-khans-empire-14xmqqy.gif
 
So um, what made India so unconquerable? :confused: Seriously, why would the Mongols not conquer them in your scenario?

I imagine the same reason the Song never did; the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush. An army of horse nomads like the Mongols would have even more trouble crossing the mountains than the infantry-based Song armies.

The more glaring exception is Korea...it's a lot easier to cross the Yalu and the mountains of northern Korea than it is to conquer Baghdad starting in Mongolia...

In this era, such an expansive empire would be effectively impossible to conquer. You might get individual warlords whose collective domains add up to this, but a unified realm is impossible. All of China is a stretch; you'd have to time their invasion precisely to a series of famines and weak Emperors to pull it off.
 
The Mongolic tribes had one advantage over everyone else. They were the first army to fight in a proper formation. Add some good tactics to that and they could easily take more territory than you think. They deserve more credit.
 

Esopo

Banned
ASB. China's population was hugely bigger than the mongolic one. Like alexander couldnt never had conquered the more popolous india the mongols, even if united, could have never conquered china. Not even Modu Chanyu ever wanted to try.
 
The more glaring exception is Korea...it's a lot easier to cross the Yalu and the mountains of northern Korea than it is to conquer Baghdad starting in Mongolia...

And why did they leave Korea alone? How can the Koreans beat them if the Chinese and Muslims can't?

Maybe the Korean kings kept on hiding on islands until the Mongols got bored *rolleyes*

OOC: One of the reasons why Korea lasted so long was not that the Mongols couldn't cross the Yalu and head to Gaegyeong, the capital, but because of the stiff resistance, which led to seven campaigns. The military government prevented the monarch and the court from surrendering earlier, while various independent holdouts, whether they formed a coherent army/navy or not, managed to stall the Mongols in various areas. It's also ironic how just retreating to Ganghwa Island effectively prevented the Mongols from attacking the temporary capital, but it was probably because they hadn't conquered the Southern Song at the time, which later provided ships during the invasion of Japan. Ultimately, the government ended up surrendering in 1259 after the last military dictator was assassinated, although the Sambyeolcho Rebellion lasted from 1270-3.

IMHO, I think it would be extremely difficult for any state to politically incorporate Korea directly, given that 12 states throughout history all failed to do so, and the Japanese Occupation was due to annexation, not an outright invasion. However, I certainly recognize that given specific circumstances, there may be a few exceptions, and ITTL, Korea's history might be significantly different from OTL, or people would just have similar viewpoints as OTL given how people generally know little about the country's history.

EDIT: It's also important to realize that the Mongol Empire was divided among Genghis Khan's successors soon after his death in 1227, and although Mongke Khan was technically the last ruler who managed to retain loose control over the other domains, by the time he died in 1259, the empire was politically divided among four khanates. In other words, the map shown does not reflect a single "state" that directly controlled all of the regions within the shaded area.
 
Last edited:
Let's assume they actually can beat enough armies, and siege enough cities to actually conquer the lands, which is still debatable that they can, they have such a horrendous governing system for ruling anything farther away that a months ride. They don't have the population to take over anything for the long term, and over extension would be terrible as if they get to even say the middle east then cities on the other sides would rebel and when they go deal with that cities on the other side revolt in a cycle till the mongols just lose everything. So, while they might conquer something it can't last longer than a generation if that.
 
Maybe they could have conquered more of the wastelands in the North, maybe perhaps an empire could have stretched from lake Balkhash to the Sea for a generation, but it wouldn't be very centralized and it would have been easy pickings for the Song when they start to get into their historic period of expansionism, it might actually make it easier, easier to go against several rump states than the nomads they were up against IOTL.
 
EDIT: It's also important to realize that the Mongol Empire was divided among Genghis Khan's successors soon after his death in 1227, and although Hulagu Khan was technically the last ruler who managed to retain loose control over the other domains, by the time he died in 1259, the empire was politically divided among four khanates. In other words, the map shown does not reflect a single "state" that directly controlled all of the regions within the shaded area.
OOC:The various rulers of that territory at least officially declared loyalty to Ogodei, Guyuk, and Mongke, and were relatively loyal to them. Even after Kublai lost all real loyalty, he and his son Temur had at least official leadership of those khanates.
 
That's like saying let's have the HRE conquer Normandy and Aquitaine, but f**k France!

Well, much of India isn't particularly pleasent to massive calvary armies, which, I would assume, is what would comprise the majority of an army made up of nomads from the steppes. Also, there are the mountains there, which might give India some more leeway, I'd suspect.

Even so, though, this just seems a bit wrong. Steppe Empires haven't been uncommon in history, and they usually cause a huge mess when they show up, such as the Magyars and the Huns (I'm not going to include the Turks in there, because their rule over Central Asia and Iran was a pretty well managed Empire! Although their states in Anatolia were certainly weaker.). But, the thought of one getting that big, and being able to last for several generations just seems a bit out there, to me.

Its interesting you have this Mongol Empire stopping before it reaches much of Europe, though; I wonder why? The Rhomans were actually rebuilding themselves at this point, so I could certainly see them stopping a *Mongol advance, but the Poles and Magyars? I mean, I'm part Polish, and have a lot of respect for the Polish Kingdom, but in the early 13th century? I think not.

On a side note; could we please get through an entire day on this board without someone harping on with Sino-propaganda!? The Chinese colonization of England, really? It was an occupation in the mid-20th century; it wasn't colonization, and it never would have flown if the Germans, New England and Rhomans hadn't lent support. I think we can have a nice frank conversation about the outcome of the Great War, without going down this path.
 
Okay, I'm not getting how this scenario of yours is even possible. I don't know a whole lot about these nomads you're discussing, but I don't get where the hell they're supposed to get the equipment and know-how to put together a solid siege train, and they'd need one to take some of the cities in China and the Middle East. Also, aren't horses slower than infantry, strategically speaking? That's to say, a horse is faster than a human, but the human's endurance is superior to the point where he actually outpaces the horse when marching hundreds of miles. Keeping that in mind, these horse nomads seem a little...fast. What, do they bring backup horses with them on campaign? Lol, that'd do a number on logistics.

Oh, and about that map: why did you put Moscow on there? Everyone knows Kiev is much more important; it's been the seat of Russian civilization since, like, the 600's, I think. That's like saying Milan's a more important Italian city than Rome or something. Needs fixing.
 
Top