Plausibility check: How big a Mongol Empire?

Strategos' Risk · Feb 12, 2008

Militarily: How far could they have expanded before they overstretched themselves? Greater or as far as they got OTL?

Politically: Could they have continued the policies they used to conquer East and Central Asia, and Eastern Europe, with Western Europe (and dare I suggest it, South and Southwest Asia and Africa)?

Internal Politics: Could they have remained more cohesive than they did in OTL?

Socially: Would their relatively blase attitude towards different religions and races, taking aspects of culture when it benefited them, have continued to work?

And a side question- would the best, safest job to get from them is to be a diplomat? They considered ambassadors inviolable, and even if their enemies didn't, at least you could count on a life insurance policy where they would utterly avenge the hell out of your death for you?

rcduggan · Feb 12, 2008

having the Mongols start off with an established religion (Nestorianism or Buddhism) would help many of your points... it would allow them to last longer (not converted to Islam and assimilated),
and maybe if Genghis's succession is not contested, his empire can stay united for longer.

Kidblast · Feb 12, 2008

How big can it get? Could it encompass the Bay of Biscay to the Bering Strait?

AmericanCaesar · Feb 13, 2008

Impossible

I think its generally agree that the terrain (woods and farmland) and heavy fortification (thousands of castles and strong points in such a small land area) would have made the Mongol subjugation of Western Europe nearly impossible. This does not count out successful raids, however.

tallwingedgoat · Feb 13, 2008

AmericanCaesar said:
I think its generally agree that the terrain (woods and farmland) and heavy fortification (thousands of castles and strong points in such a small land area) would have made the Mongol subjugation of Western Europe nearly impossible.

All of which the Mongols overcame elsewhere. As far as the quantity of Eruopean castles, they don't have to lay seige to all of them. Sacking a few forts and making examples of the defenders has worked consistently for them in the past. Laying waste to the countryside, season after season would force the local ruler to submit. Afterall, who wants to be the lord of an empty estate?

carlton_bach · Feb 13, 2008

I think the main problem for the Mongol Empire was that its structure wasn't set up to last. Many subject people were resentful, the Mongols a less than popular ruling caste and the military power that made them irresistible deteriorated while that of their opponents increased. So in terms of time, I would think a smaller Mongol Empire would have lasted longer. They had a reasonable stab at continually dominating Central Asia, but Iran, Iraq, China and big chunks of East Asia just was too far.

As to their military prospects - I don't see anyone able to stand up to the conquering armies in the immediate aftermath of Genghis. Had Ain Jalut gone the other way, Egypt would doubdtlessly have been on the menu (and if a Mongol-run Mamluk fleet doesn't scare the Italians shitless I don't know what would). Similarly, if internal politics hadn't mandated a retreat from Europe the Mongols would no doubt have succeeded at least at conquering the HRE and the Balkans. I'm less convinced they would have wanted to hold it in more than a loose tributary relationship - it wasn't all that valuable and probably not worth the effort - but if they managed to reduce the fortresses and negotiate the mountains of China, Europe wouldn't have posed that much of a problem.

Earling · Feb 13, 2008

Depends on how you mean 'conquer'.

Could they have swept into Western Europe?
Yes.
Could they have 'conquered it'?
Yes. With the qualification that it would take time, not the one campaign job alot pro-mongolian conquest of Europe people claim.

Did the Mongolian Empire have the time?
The answer would appear to be no. Atleast in OTL the Empire was collapsing almost as swiftly as it had been built. Europe may well have just had the hungarian experience writ large. Huge numbers of peasants get slaughtered, the bulk of the feudal aristocrats however survive in their fortifications or negotiate deals to ensure their existence. They proceed to come back/take over and rebuild after the Mongolian hosts have largely disintergrated. The further west the swifter this process would be. In OTL the Mongols were fairly invincible in 1241, yet just 30-40 years later they were being defeated by Europeans (and Mamluks) with fair regularity.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Feb 13, 2008

tallwingedgoat said:
All of which the Mongols overcame elsewhere. As far as the quantity of Eruopean castles, they don't have to lay seige to all of them. Sacking a few forts and making examples of the defenders has worked consistently for them in the past. Laying waste to the countryside, season after season would force the local ruler to submit. Afterall, who wants to be the lord of an empty estate?

That's not entirely true. The other polities smashed by the Mongols were larger-scale, centralized states. Attacking feudal Europe would be a much more difficult project; in essence, sacking the fort, IS destroying the whole state. A feudal lord has no incentive to surrender as he loses everything by doing so. More likely he would try to buy them off - and that will not make for a lasting Mongol state.

Also, Mongol power was based upon cavalry, and not the same type as a Western horseman - each warrior had ten or so horses, which were rotated in battle and used as food. Once the horses ran out, that was it. A large army with 10 horses to the man consumes horrendous amounts of grain; laying waste will not be an effective conquest strategy, as it merely accellerates your departure date. That's why Mongol conquests were limited to regions with enormous grazing plains. You may remember the result of the Hun invasion of Italy. Not pretty for the Huns.

If you look at a map of the Mongol Empire, it was limited by lands of the type I mentioned above. There were a few temporary successes elsewhere, but in general I would say the only possible additions would have been the Hungarian plains and maybe Syria if they hadn't been checked by the Mamelukes.

Any other success would have to be China-like, where they could march in and replace the ruling dynasty of a centralized state; unfortunately, the only potential targets at the time were the Byzantine Empire - and good luck getting to Constantinople, and the Mamelukes, good luck getting to Cairo.

There might be some potential in India, but the supply line to there was pretty difficult. Still, a couple of lucky victories could make a lot of headway. The issue in very heavily-populated areas like India and China is that a small conquering force quickly gets assimilated and disappears entirely.

Faeelin · Feb 13, 2008

Hmm. I could see Poland and Syria added, with Java under Kublai.

Japan, I feel, is out of the picture.

Analytical Engine · Feb 13, 2008

Faeelin said:
Hmm. I could see Poland and Syria added, with Java under Kublai.

Mongol East Indies...

Ridwan Asher · Feb 13, 2008

Faeelin said:
1) Hmm. I could see Poland and Syria added, with Java under Kublai.

2) Japan, I feel, is out of the picture.

1) Well, he should have send someone smarter than Wijaya. And more importantly, that someone shouldn't be someone who would favor drunk-until-you-drop partying after a victory, in which is harrrddd to find...

2) Just negate the Kamikazes to have a Mongol Japan, actually.

Faeelin · Feb 13, 2008

R. I. Alsidecias said:
2) Just negate the Kamikazes to have a Mongol Japan, actually.

Eh....

I'm not convinced that solves the problem.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/conlan.pdf

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Feb 13, 2008

R. I. Alsidecias said:
2) Just negate the Kamikazes to have a Mongol Japan, actually.

Strongly disagree. The Mongols invaded with just 20,000-25,000 troops and were defeated on the beach by the Japanese force in the locality. If they Mongols had won they would have been faced soon afterwards with overwhelming force. They had no logistical capability to maintain a large enough force to have any hope of conquering Japan.

The "Kamakazi" was a factor not because of a freak occurrence, but was nearly inevitable because of a severe limitation of the Mongol invasion fleet, which was that it didn't contain vessels designed for sea conditions.

Ridwan Asher · Feb 13, 2008

Analytical Engine said:
Mongol East Indies...

This will actually going to have interesting consequences. I don't think you would gonna have a Mongol East Indies right away. But surely for a Mongol Java, especially, Mongol Eastern Java. This would have a major impact on South East Asia as whole really. If we choose a short lasting time of Mongol presence there (which would be the most likely to happen anyway), than we'd see the Islamic Samudra Pasai in Aceh who would have survived for a well enough longer time without a Majapahit threat, and this would eventually give them the chance to dominate Nusantara, at the very least the Western part of it. This will certainly influence the world significantly and I'd say everything will be different after 1450 in this ATL. I want to see a time line made out from this PoD.

Glen · Feb 13, 2008

Strategos' Risk said:
Militarily: How far could they have expanded before they overstretched themselves? Greater or as far as they got OTL?

Eurasia absent Scandinavia and the British Isles, North Africa.

The Mongols did not have traditional lines of communication, worked as independent armies with good leadership independence, actively recruited other horsemen into the Mongol way of life, and tended to exterminate any opposition as opposed to subduing, so overextension was hard to get. Basically they could theoretically get anywhere a horse could get where the terrain or the illness wouldn't stop them.

Politically: Could they have continued the policies they used to conquer East and Central Asia, and Eastern Europe, with Western Europe (and dare I suggest it, South and Southwest Asia and Africa)?

Yes. They would have failed in Sub-Saharan Africa due to diseases of both people and horses, not any opposition.

Internal Politics: Could they have remained more cohesive than they did in OTL?

No. While the military expansion was not vunerable to traditional logistics, coordinating a polity certainly was. Fragmentation (though into fragments the size of Empires!) was unavoidable given the distances and diversity involved, and would be even more so if they had gotten farther. Maybe could have slowed down fragmentation by a generation or two, but once those who knew Genghis and his offspring were dust, the ties would fray under the logistics.

Socially: Would their relatively blase attitude towards different religions and races, taking aspects of culture when it benefited them, have continued to work?

Yes and no. Would have continued to work for pre-adapting them as the new ruling class of the successor empires/nations. However, it would lead to them eventually adapting the prevailing religions of their subject peoples.

And a side question- would the best, safest job to get from them is to be a diplomat? They considered ambassadors inviolable, and even if their enemies didn't, at least you could count on a life insurance policy where they would utterly avenge the hell out of your death for you?

Not too bad. Maybe a horse breeder....

Glen · Feb 13, 2008

AmericanCaesar said:
I think its generally agree that the terrain (woods and farmland) and heavy fortification (thousands of castles and strong points in such a small land area) would have made the Mongol subjugation of Western Europe nearly impossible. This does not count out successful raids, however.

Disagree. The forests would slow them some, but not much. Farmlands are tailor made for them as the foods' there for the taking and the land has been cleared already. Heavy fortifications meant nothing to them, they just ride around them and kill everything in the fields. They'd leave little hard points in the middle of utter devastation.

Glen · Feb 13, 2008

rcduggan said:
having the Mongols start off with an established religion (Nestorianism or Buddhism) would help many of your points... it would allow them to last longer (not converted to Islam and assimilated),
and maybe if Genghis's succession is not contested, his empire can stay united for longer.

Disagree. Having a different religion or an established one would make the populace harder to rule over (though not impossible, check out the Mogul Empire). Genghis' succession wasn't the problem, the sheer size of the monstrosity was.

Glen · Feb 13, 2008

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
That's not entirely true. The other polities smashed by the Mongols were larger-scale, centralized states. Attacking feudal Europe would be a much more difficult project; in essence, sacking the fort, IS destroying the whole state. A feudal lord has no incentive to surrender as he loses everything by doing so. More likely he would try to buy them off - and that will not make for a lasting Mongol state.

True, but I don't think they come up with a single lasting Mongol state anywhere anyway.

Also, Mongol power was based upon cavalry, and not the same type as a Western horseman - each warrior had ten or so horses, which were rotated in battle and used as food. Once the horses ran out, that was it. A large army with 10 horses to the man consumes horrendous amounts of grain; laying waste will not be an effective conquest strategy, as it merely accellerates your departure date. That's why Mongol conquests were limited to regions with enormous grazing plains. You may remember the result of the Hun invasion of Italy. Not pretty for the Huns.

This is true to a degree, but remember for the initial invasion the Mongols will have no compunction about providing fodder for their horses wherever they find it, including killing other livestock or humans to feed on whatever grain crops or pasturage would do.

If you look at a map of the Mongol Empire, it was limited by lands of the type I mentioned above. There were a few temporary successes elsewhere, but in general I would say the only possible additions would have been the Hungarian plains and maybe Syria if they hadn't been checked by the Mamelukes.

If they won past the Mamelukes (and really, they'd be pretty easy to supplant, why would the Egyptians care if they were ruled by foreign Mamelukes or foreign Mongols, especially if the Mongols convert to Islam as they did elsewhere in Asia), they should be able to sweep the rest of the North African coast.

Any other success would have to be China-like, where they could march in and replace the ruling dynasty of a centralized state; unfortunately, the only potential targets at the time were the Byzantine Empire - and good luck getting to Constantinople, and the Mamelukes, good luck getting to Cairo.

So, they may not take the City, but the rest of the Byzantine Empire might fall.

There might be some potential in India, but the supply line to there was pretty difficult. Still, a couple of lucky victories could make a lot of headway. The issue in very heavily-populated areas like India and China is that a small conquering force quickly gets assimilated and disappears entirely.

I think that would be their fate more or less everywhere. The Mongols could take more, but it will be with much the same effect as OTL areas that they did take, with them joining the ruling class and being absorbed by the peoples they had conquered (though not without leaving an indelible mark).

Ran Exilis · Feb 13, 2008

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
There might be some potential in India, but the supply line to there was pretty difficult. Still, a couple of lucky victories could make a lot of headway.

I agree - there were a few (pre-Timurid) Mongol invasions of India, but those were largely unsuccessful raids, and due to internal conflicts (the civil war caused by Qaidu, for example), the Mongols never really got the opportunity to organize a proper invasion of India.

And what's more; by the time the Mongols finally got a decent opportunity to invade India, they had to deal with Ala ud-Din Khilji, who just happened to be one of the most capable sultans that the Delhi Sultanate ever had.

...and the rise of Ala ud-Din Khilji could easily be butterflied away.

In fact, if the Mongols would have invaded India in full force during 1289 or so, then they would have faced a Delhi Sultanate that is suffering from internal revolts and political instability, and is led by a sultan who is weak and uncapable compared to his predecessor Balban or the future Ala ud-Din Khilji.

Strategos' Risk · Feb 13, 2008

Glen said:
Yes and no. Would have continued to work for pre-adapting them as the new ruling class of the successor empires/nations. However, it would lead to them eventually adapting the prevailing religions of their subject peoples.

I kind of get an inkling that had the Mongols managed to stay in charge of a bunch of successor states in Europe or Arabia or Central Asia, they would have half-assimilated into the native cultures, taken up their religions, and eventually use those as an excuse to fight each other. (I'm thinking about Doug Hoff's Empty America, where a Nestorian Great Khan comes to power and declares a crusade, yet he has relatives who are Muslim Mongols.) It doesn't seem likely to me that the Mongols would remain aloof about religious differences forever; they'd eventually fight over such differences after time, I bet.