Map Thread XI

[Delvestius]

You'll have to be much more specific. "That tasty little peninsula" resisted invasions from the Khitan, Jurchen, Mongols, and Japanese for over 600 years despite little notice before conflicts broke out, along with being severely outnumbered (more than 10:1 in some cases). In addition, Korea had around 200-500 fortresses by the time that the Mongols invaded, and neither the Mongols nor the Japanese managed to overrun everything before the frontline, which cost them severely when guerrilla operations eventually kicked in, as multiple regions prevented the invaders from advancing further after stalling. It's also worth mentioning that it only takes one offer of negotiations from the Korean side to cease operations, which occurred after each campaign IOTL, as there's no point in attacking continously when a country remains militarily defensive and openly offers resources in the form of tribute. If even one fortress resists, the invaders can also be severely affected, as the Mongols withdraw from Kusong (first invasion) after sieging it for 30 days, and withdrew entirely in the second campaign when a Korean monk assassinated a commander with a single arrow, to give specific examples, despite that the Koreans were severely outnumbered throughout the 30-year war, suggesting that the Mongols were unwilling to press on further due to severely depleted resources and morale.

Testaments to the tenacity of Koreans, surely, though sadly for the this Korea, tenacity alone will not see them through. We have:

1. A smaller Korean force ITTL to begin with, say 150-200,000.
2. A Larger Mongol force, say 600-750,000 (The rest of which laying siege in China while some regional governors contemplate surrender).
3. aided by a force numbering 100-150,000 and a navy more than able to contend with the Koreans.

EDIT: In all the campaigns but the first it seems like the Koreans got the worst end of the shtick.

 

[democracy101]

Testaments to the tenacity of Koreans, surely, though sadly for the this Korea, tenacity alone will not see them through. We have:

1. A smaller Korean force ITTL to begin with, say 150-200,000.
2. A Larger Mongol force, say 600-750,000 (The rest of which laying siege in China while some regional governors contemplate surrender).
3. aided by a force numbering 100-150,000 and a navy more than able to contend with the Koreans.

Add 4. A Song force numbering around 300,000-500,000 that refuses to surrender due to the Mandate of Heaven, tying the Mongols down within various regions.

2 is also virtually impossible, as it would essentially require arming virtually every male and female between the ages of 15 and 60, or relying on around 250,000-500,000 potentially unstable allies. For comparison, the Mongols IOTL raised no more than 100,000-200,000 troops across Eurasia except for specific exceptions, while more would severely deplete resources. 3 is also impossible, as the Mongols are virtually landlocked here, and cannot rely on a navy taken from the Jin or a similar counterpart as IOTL.

A smaller Korean force might be possible, but is extremely unlikely as the vast majority were composed of local militias that operated independently of the government, which was why the Koreans were outnumbered in individual battles, as the invaders were concentrated within specific locations while other native local troops remained elsewhere.

 

[Delvestius]

Add 4. A Song force numbering around 300,000-500,000 that refuses to surrender due to the Mandate of Heaven, tying the Mongols down within various regions.

Silly me.. The Korean invasion happens earlier than the Chinese one, and if the Chinese came to help they would have been peppered with arrows in the field.

2 is also virtually impossible, as it would essentially require arming virtually every male and female between the ages of 15 and 60, or relying on around 250,000-500,000 potentially unstable allies. For comparison, the Mongols IOTL raised no more than 100,000-200,000 troops across Eurasia except for specific exceptions, while more would severely deplete resources. 3 is also impossible, as the Mongols are virtually landlocked here, and cannot rely on a navy taken from the Jin or a similar counterpart as IOTL.

Perhaps that was a bit high. With alternate migration patterns and mercenaries, I'm saying 300-325k Mongols.

The navy is Japans, headed by a Mori Admiral.

A smaller Korean force might be possible, but is extremely unlikely as the vast majority were composed of local militias that operated independently of the government, which was why the Koreans were outnumbered in individual battles, as the invaders were concentrated within specific locations while other native local troops remained elsewhere.

Keep in mind, this doesn't make them the best soldiers.

 

[democracy101]

I'll try to end this here. PM me if you still have any pressing questions.

Silly me.. The Korean invasion happens earlier than the Chinese one, and if the Chinese came to help they would have been peppered with arrows in the field.

The Chinese would never think about directly heading to Goryeo, but rather focus on pushing further north into the steppes to curtail further nomadic raids, tying the Mongols up along a much larger front. For comparison, the Khitans attempted to do something similar centuries earlier, but were eventually forced to retreat after overextending themselves.

Perhaps that was a bit high. With alternate migration patterns and mercenaries, I'm saying 300-325k Mongols.

The navy is Japans, headed by a Mori Admiral.

Alternate population transfers only make it much more likely for the nomads to frequently raid their southern neighbors for centuries beforehand due to significant population pressures, causing both China and Korea to be much more prepared during the time period in question. As a result, this just makes it much more likely to increase the number of Korean troops, of which more would be experienced after generations of combat. The number of Mongol troops you're suggesting are still too high, as the Khitan sent around 400,000 against Goryeo in 1010 while simultaneously sending troops against the Song, but were forced to retreat due to overextension, low resources, and low mobility due to transporting a large amount of troops. As a result, given that the bulk of the Mongol army would be tied up against China, most of the Goryeo troops would be focused on repelling Japanese forces, and the Imjin War demonstrated IOTL that the Korean navy was more than enough to prevent Japanese ships from reaching their intended destinations.

Keep in mind, this doesn't make them the best soldiers.

Yes, but as I stated earlier, there's well over 100 fortresses to capture, which makes it worse for the invaders as time passes due to dwindling resources. I can certainly understand the invaders seizing 10 or so, but they'll almost certainly be bogged down by a handful after 50, and winter would be around the corner if they take 100.

 

[B_Munro]

Korea, Korea uber alles...

 

[Delvestius]

Korea, Korea uber alles...

I just find it hard to belief that it's invincible, especially after how many times the mongols ruined them after their initial blunder.

You provide good points democracy, but you forget that Korea did loose, multiple times.

 

[democracy101]

I just find it hard to belief that it's invincible, especially after how many times the mongols ruined them after their initial blunder.

You provide good points democracy, but you forget that Korea did loose, multiple times.

I fully acknowledge that Korea lost multiple important battles throughout its history. It's even possible that it lost far more than it won. But winning a war is not the same.

 

[B_Munro]

Maps now.

One of my "covers", this of an old map by TheLoneAmigo, in which Napoleon dies early on, and the French Directorate manages to evolve into a working form of government. Louisiana is taken back from Spain as part of a general peace and not sold to the US. Butterflies flap, the US breaks up early on although eventually managing to consolidate into just two chunks. Korea is poked open by the French in the 1840s, and manages to do a credible job of modernizing itself. Japan is kicked open in the 60s by the Russians, and does not do well at all. The ongoing French-British cold war leads to a wave of British reaction that ends in the British Revolution of the 1850s. A Republic is established with French aid. The Old Order tries to hold on abroad, but Canada is munched by the two US states, aided by Quebeqois rebellion. British India falls to native revolt and the French navy: the French then establish themselves as the new overlord, although ruling the interior of the subcontinent with a rather looser hand than the British. Only in the far Pacific does a British remnant survive, protected by sheer distance and disinterest.

The odd news comes in the 1910s that the garrison-state of Australia has been overthrown by a new revolutionary movement, combining elements of what we might call Marxism and Technocracy and some other odds and ends. They call it Syndicalism, although it is rather different from the OTL movement with the same name. Such ideas have been circulating for a while: there is some alarm, but Australia is far away.

And then, after a long extended period of what we would call gilded age or robber-baron capitalism, of elitist democracy and labor kept firmly in its place, comes an economic turndown. A depression, really. OK, maybe even something that can be called a "Great Depression"...

And the fuse is lit.

In the year 1949, things have stabilized a bit, and the various major capitalist powers have pacified their working classes with a mix of sticks and carrots. However, the revolution has now spread to colonial possessions in Africa and Asia. Politicians call for a reversal of the gains of the revolution, and there is talk of a US-Portuguese-French-Egyptian-Prussian alliance for a Crusade Against Syndicalism. China, which fell apart in the 1920s, triggering the Korean-Russian war, remains another dangerous source of instability which some say should be attended to. Russia is still too busy hunting down Red Rebels they see hiding under every bed to do too much abroad, and the democracies and more-or-less-democracies and democracies-for-white-people-only aren't sure if they want to team up with a tyranny.

Technology is a couple decades or so behind OTL, so at least nobody is threatening anyone with nuclear weapons: but the potential exists now for a global war on an unprecedented scale, and things are about to start happening in China...

Bruce

 

[B_Munro]

And here is a map for that.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

I just find it hard to belief that it's invincible, especially after how many times the mongols ruined them after their initial blunder.

You provide good points democracy, but you forget that Korea did loose, multiple times.

I'm going to go at this from the opposite side: if Korea faced simultaneous Japanese and Mongol invasions, it would lose much more quickly. Korea would not have been able to resist the Mongol invasions for so long if it weren't for the untouched south. In a Japanese invasion, that lifeline would be cut.

But your description of Japan is quite different from the OTL Kamakura Shogunate, if that's what you're basing things on. For one, the shoguns didn't have any actual political power during most of this time. And second, I don't think there was any central navy either. So a Japan that went on a foreign venture at this time doesn't seem very likely.

 

[democracy101]

I'm going to go at this from the opposite side: if Korea faced simultaneous Japanese and Mongol invasions, it would lose much more quickly. Korea would not have been able to resist the Mongol invasions for so long if it weren't for the untouched south. In a Japanese invasion, that lifeline would be cut.

There's the issue with the Song as well, which still remains vague, but I agree that Korea would certainly lose much more quickly, as it essentially lost IOTL, which was the reason why it offered to be a tributary multiple times in the first place. However, I'm saying that Korea would offer negotiations and tribute before the opposition seizes both Gaegyeong and Ganghwa, as surrendering with an intact monarchy is different than surrendering while the country is occupied and turned into a province altogether. IOTL, the population decreased by half due to the extensive wars, while the countryside was devastated, so conflicts would probably only last around 10-20 years, instead of 30-40 as IOTL.

 

[Codae]

I am certain I have never before encountered the term "Lama-off".

 

[B_Munro]

I am certain I have never before encountered the term "Lama-off".

Well, it's not a situation that arises often...

 

[Xanthoc]

A rather ASB little number where a fire causes the death of several governors at a meeting.

The far northern Colonies (Canada) end up with stricter Governors to replace them, who then enact policies that allows the separatists in the 13 colonies to gain support. The Canadians join the Revolution, but eventually a rift occurs when the Canadians (Who have started to call themselves Columbians) decide they want to have a monarch, eventually developing the idea for elected monarchy. The Americans disagree and they eventually begin to squabble, extending the war.

After the Columbians get the French on their side, and the Americans get the Spanish, the British become spread too thin and end the war. The USA and USC gain independence. The USA eventually faces a collapse as Columbia, being friendlier to Europe, becomes an economic hub, taking trade away from the already declining Republic. After their collapse, the Americans are brought back together by OTL Federalists. They reform the nation into the Federation of Anglo-American States (FAAS).

Fast forward to the 1900's, a Cold War has brewed between the Monarchist-Democrats and the Presidential-Republicans. The Christian Communist Collaborative of the Proletariat (CCCP) and FAAS lead the Liberty League, while the United States of Columbia (USC) and the Constitutional People's Kingdom of France lead the Alliance of the Peoples' Crowns.

(Note: The Federal Republic of New Spain (FRNS) is not officially part of the Liberty League, but loathes Brazil and Columbia, making it the League's closest ally.)

 

[DrakonFin]

I haven't read that one - wasn't Finland a neutral in the cold war?

Tried its best to be. You could say the game was rigged, though, making it well night impossible to stay out in case of WWIII. The 1948 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance with the USSR specified that Finland should protect itself against foreign invaders "allied with Germany" - in the USSR this was understood as "NATO" - and that the Soviet Unions could assist Finland if the latter is attacked. In case of the Cold War going hot, the Soviets thus expected to extend their defence to Finland, and the Americans in turn listed targets in Finland to be nuked to deny them to the Warsaw Pact.

In the scenario depicted on the map, events have conspired to make both sides nuke Finland - the Soviets mainly with tactical weapons after the conventional war against NATO (and recalcitrant Finland that found some backbone) went nuclear, and then American strategic weapons for area denial reasons after the Americans saw Finland as a lost cause.

 

[B_Munro]

Hmm. I find it a bit hard to believe the US goes and nukes a fellow democracy after the Soviets have already nuked them - and such a small-scale "denial of resources" is absurd when you're going to destroy every sizable city in the enemy's country - but on the other hand the whole premise of MAD was that both sides were willing if pushed to do literally insane things: I suppose we couldn't let the Soviets out-insane us, after all. USA! USA! NUMBER ONE!

 

[Kou Gakei]

And here is a map for that.

Eh..... how the hell did Korea get Ezo and Shandong?

 

[DrakonFin]

Hmm. I find it a bit hard to believe the US goes and nukes a fellow democracy after the Soviets have already nuked them -

Well, it all does happen virtually simultaneously - there is at most a couple of hours between the first tactical nukes used in Finland and the beginning of the general exchange. In broader terms, the Americans have noted the conventional Soviet invasion of Finland and by the general exchange consider Finland already de facto Warsaw Pact territory, even if the Finnish forces are still putting up a surprisingly good fight in the south. In the north, most of Finnish Lappland has been evacuated and abandoned to the Soviet Army - the two small nukes up north are NATO tactical weapons used against Soviet formations en route to the Norwegian border. Several of the American targets in Finland are in Soviet hands nearly as good as similar Warsaw Pact resources - they include, for example, five Finnish military air fields, which (if captured intact) the Soviets could use for many things.

This of course partly assumes that the Americans have only time for an either/or option under the circumstances, nuke Finland or don't nuke Finland. In this case, with roughly half of the country in Soviet control and the rest estimated to fall within days, according to available (even if pretty sketchy) intel, they go for the first option.

 

[Tallest Skil]

The United States gains Upper Canada in the War of 1812

How do we do that but not settle the claim in Maine in our favor?

 

[iori]

How do we do that but not settle the claim in Maine in our favor?

Maybe Maine pissed off the rest of the country, or the British held out there?