Maximum extant of Mongol imperialism

[Errnge]

Everything.

In all seriousness they could have moved in on the Indus, Egypt, Japan, and the Rhineland. A long time ago I think there was a TL about Mongols discovering America....

 

[The Ubbergeek]

In a more serious, closer to home and perhaps easier - but being a problem in the long run, the Mongols-Yuan Dynasty could have in theory taken Korea (there was a war or some battles with the local dynasty I believe) instead of just accepting the traditional chinese empire 'vassal kingdom status'.

But that could have been problematic with years passing, with potential revolts and all, akin to what happened when the Ming chineses (I believe) where in modern Vietnam.

 

[democracy101]

In a more serious, closer to home and perhaps easier - but being a problem in the long run, the Mongols-Yuan Dynasty could have in theory taken Korea (there was a war or some battles with the local dynasty I believe) instead of just accepting the traditional chinese empire 'vassal kingdom status'.

But that could have been problematic with years passing, with potential revolts and all, akin to what happened when the Ming chineses (I believe) where in modern Vietnam.

How?

I'll quote some of my posts from another thread:

IOTL, the military dictatorship simply refused to surrender from Ganghwa Island for almost 30 years IOTL (and staged counter-coups for over a decade afterward) despite the Mongols systematically devastating the entire peninsula (causing a drop in population from 8-12 to 4-6 million) from the third to fifth campaigns (the first two only affected the northern regions, while the last two did not experience major conflicts), and the Mongols retreated each time after Goryeo agreed to negotiate (with the exception of the second and fifth campaigns) . . .

The Mongols would also have been much more pressured along the front with China, as had been the case for decades IOTL, and would have been unable to commit much more than 100,000 troops to each front due to logistical reasons. For comparison, the Khitan Liao invaded both countries with at least 300,000 troops in separate campaigns, but eventually retreated due to numerous logistical issues, while the Jurchen Jin invaded the Song with less than 100,000 (after defeating the Liao), and was not prepared to take South China. As a result, deploying less troops would have made it much more difficult to retain most of the conquered territory as irregulars and guerrillas continued to operate.

Additionally, the failure to expand further west would have severely strained Mongol resources (along with another potential front), as the troops would lack access to more sources of funding, along with numerous foreign architects, soldiers, and technology allowing the invaders to exert much more pressure IOTL.

. . .

As a result, the Mongols would have been extremely pressured, leading them to leave smaller states alone as tributaries in order to redirect their attention to larger fronts.

The Mongols never intended to conquer Korea, as it was essentially worth nothing to them (it was a minor peninsula, after all) in comparison with its neighbors. In fact, it had originally allied with Goryeo in 1219 in order to crush a resurgent Khitan entity, and there is no indication that Genghis Khan ever contemplated invading the peninsula, especially when considering that he was busy with campaigns to the west and south. However, Ogodei eventually decided to invade specifically because an envoy had been killed near the border in 1225, giving it an excuse to invade in 1231 (indicating deliberations for years), and none of the invasions involved systematically capturing and retaining each fortress one by one, partially because it lacked the manpower to do so.

For reference, all Mongol conquests involved an entity (Khwarezmia, Persia, Abbasid, Kievan Rus, Hungary, Goryeo, Jin, Song, Vietnam, etc.) specifically refusing negotiations, which caused the Mongols to invade in response, as each region was required in order to invade other remote regions in turn. While successful campaigns frequently resulted in outright absorption into the growing Mongol Empire, in other cases, the invaders frequently left entities (Goryeo, Tibet, Delhi, Vietnam, Champa, Pagan, etc.) alone if they were willing to pay tribute after several major campaigns, although the degree of political control varied widely. This would have remained the same, regardless of the circumstances, as the Mongols would have been more than willing to establish cordial relations with some while continuing to "punish" others for refusing to acknowledge Mongol hegemony.

Korea also represented an extreme case because while the court was more than willing to surrender and pay tribute, the military was not so receptive, as doing so would have meant an end to the military dictatorship. As a result, while the military continuously resisted for seven campaigns (and one uprising), the court continued to negotiate in order to temporarily cease hostilities, while the invaders continued to raid various fortresses to pressure the court on Ganghwa to surrender, as continued resistance made it difficult to retain their possessions for long. Ultimately, neither side wished to take the conclusion to the extreme and waste much needed resources, and had the military dictatorship been butterflied away due to significant divergences long beforehand, the war would have come to an end after 2-5 campaigns that would have been much more limited in scope.

Organizing more soldiers would have severely limited mobility, which forced the Khitan to bypass multiple fortifications for around a century against China (and Korea) before they were beaten back each time, as they were surrounded by hostile armies. On the other hand, while a relatively smaller army would have boosted mobility, they would have been limited to raids, as there would be less soldiers available to hold onto newly captured territory. In Korea's case, stiff resistance occurred due to the military dictatorship (see above), and no Korean official would have continued to refuse negotiations despite severe turmoil across the countryside for years, if not decades.

In other words, the Mongols could only have conquered Goryeo and directly incorporate it into the Yuan if both sides were willing to be irrational for decades and simply refuse to negotiate whatsoever, despite the fact that establishing diplomatic relations would have been much more beneficial, given that resources would not have been depleted. IOTL, the Mongols realized this, as it failed to invade the southern portion of the peninsula in the first two campaigns, devastated the countryside during the middle three to pressure the government, but retreated after negotiations each time, and the last two did not involve major battles. As a result, only three out of seven experienced significant conflicts.

Had the invaders somehow carried out a direct occupation, however, the peninsula would essentially have been depopulated within 10-30 years, given the level of destruction that had occurred IOTL, and the Mongols would have been forced to pull their troops away from major fronts across Eurasia, which wouldn't exactly fulfill the OP. This general outcome is not only limited to Korea, however, as you can replace "Korea" with any other country that eventually decided to become a tributary (as listed in the second quote).

 

[Russian]

It took the mongols decades to defeat and occupy the southern song.
That civ by the way was far closer to the mongol supply chain and resources and far more empting target for the mongols to take.
If they had difficulty in southern china which was far closer to their home what makes you think they will have an easier timem in Europe?

What makes me think that the Mongols would have an easier time in Europe?

Well, you should remember that my POD is - the Great Khagan Ögedei is not alcoholic, he does not die a premature death and lives 10 years longer.
So the unity of the Mongol World Empire is prolonged. And the Jochids of the Golden Horde are not supposed to be afraid of being attacked by the other Mongols from behind. They have free hands and might concentrate all their forces and energy on Europe.

As we know in OTL Kublai Khan had to fight on several fronts at the same time - against the rival pretenders for the Great Khan throne from the North (Mongolia proper and Manchuria) and against the Southern Song. Sometimes in the middle of campaign in the Southern China Kublai Khan had to rush his army North and than again back South.

That's why it took the mongols decades to defeat and occupy the southern song.

And one more thing - the Southern Song was far more populous, technologically advanced and fortified than Europe which is quite obvious...

 

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

And one more thing - the Southern Song was far more populous, technologically advanced and fortified than Europe which is quite obvious...

course it was. it had better transportation, more centralizing government, lots more wealth, and was near the mongol core territories. Heck the song were the most technologically advanced nation in the world at the time.

Compare that with Europe with its forests full of dirt roads, terrible transportation systems, lack of proper pastures etc. The Jochids I agree were strong but unless they have a 100k soldiers they aren't gonna be able to get to France. Tell me how they will attack and sieze Venice or any of its territories? What about Genoa which can always fall back to corisca. Can they take Sardinia? Yes they could go down Italy but the geography of Italy.

One other factor is money. You see the Italian states were all very wealthy and would no doubt pay lots of money to the khan who would in turn ignore them. Plus with the alps as a natural barrier the mongols would have difficulty. Not to mention if they invaded Switzerland, well they could take it,, but even in otl the swiss mountains would waste lots of resources to take. Could they advance htrough the forests, yes eventually. I can see the Mongols also driving into France but then they would be halted at the Pyreenes. The Pyreenes would protect Spain and the Spanish terrain makes it virtually a pain in the arse to conquer as well. THus while I can see the mongols reaching France given say 15 years to advance further would be next to impossible. geography,logistics war weariness, and lack of lots of good loot and plunder, not some European ubermechs would halt the mongol advance to put it simply.

As for fortified European cities. name me one city in China as well fortified as the city of Constantinople. Except the Great wall which by the way the mongols bypassed.

 

[Russian]

I ask you, respectfully but firmly, to stop considering people as bitter and idiotic ennemies.

No, I do not consider all people as bitter and idiotic enemies.
I treat this way only those people who think that Europe was somehow immune to the Mongol conquest.
(*that was intended as a joke in case you did not get it).

But now serious, look yourself at the posts of those who think that Europe could not be conquered by the Mongols. The majority of these posters do not know history of Asia and the Mongol conquests.
I have to admit that now there is less ignorant bullshit than there was in this forum in similar threads about the Mongols 2-3 years ago. I remember that posters (of European origin of course) sincerely thought that Mongol bows were not fit for the European weather, that the Mongols could not take fortifications, that they could not make war in the forests or mountains and the like.

Now things changed but not entirely.
Just read the following:

Compare that with Europe with its forests full of dirt roads, terrible transportation systems, lack of proper pastures etc.

Just no comments. Just read it.
Hell, I will make one comment.
For the last time.
Everybody who studied history of the Mongol conquests knows the famous campaign of Batu Khan in Rus which was unprecedented in the military world history - that brilliant campaign took place in winter.
I guess even an Italian knows that there is some problem in the North-East Rus with "proper pastures" during Russian winter. Well, I hope so.

So I admit, I might be rude. But this is unintentionally.
But guys, before speaking about the Mongol conquest, read some book about it. Damn, just google...

 

[LSCatilina]

I treat this way only those people who think that Europe was somehow immune to the Mongol conquest.

Nobody said that. Some presented arguments, that you may think irrelevant, but your antics fails to convince anyone or to make your argument simply worthy to be heard.
It would be seriously both more polite AND instructive for all of us if you pointed out rationally why they couldn't apply.

I'm maybe old-fashioned, but I think primary sources and good arguments convince more easily people (as RGB convinced me about the viability of a Mongolian-Pannonian entity).

I have to admit that now there is less ignorant bullshit than there was in this forum in similar threads about the Mongols 2-3 years ago. I remember that posters (of European origin of course)

Yeah, because European origin makes you racist. I sincerely wonder why this shit is still tolerated in this thread, btw : how can you expect anyone to participe in a discussion if, whatever they can say, being of "european origin" is enough to be dismissed?

sincerely thought that Mongol bows were not fit for the European weather, that the Mongols could not take fortifications, that they could not make war in the forests or mountains and the like.

There's a lot of difference betwen arguing "they couldn't" and "they didn't do that impressivly". I've not the courage to go trough years of discussion about it, but on this thread, nobody said that.

As I can't, nor want, to take responsability for other posts than mine anyway, I'l hold my point. That Mongols were able to dominate battlefield on Europeans is an historical fact, prooved several times, that's no question about it.

However, and since we're talking about knowledge of era and features, allow me to put mine on this : medieval warfare is extremly rarely about decisive battles. You can count them on your fingers and the most known of these didn't allowed territorial take-over themselves.

Mongols, with limited numbers on this campaign (again, the comparison with Arabo-Berbers is interesting on this regard, as well the distance from possible reinforcements), even if not called back, would face the same issues than IOTL : taking little by little the land itself (and more you advance in the west, more develloped fortifications you find in a ridiculously huge number).
While Europe wasn't exactly a god-forgotten place ridden with poverty and more poverty, the whole military and economical effort wouldn't be worth it. We're talking of a war of attrition Mongols far from their bases couldn't win if they just kept a stereotipycal "Crush your ennemies, see them dying before your eyes, and hear laments of their womens".

Of course, Mongols were often far more skillfull than this, as pointed out for Korea. It is why I think they would eventually (if maintained in Europe) exerce an hegemon over Eastern and parts of Central Europe; where not only lands were more fitting their traditional institutions; and where vassal or submitted states (as Bulgaria, probably Croatia, Serbia, on the south; and possibly German states).

Another problem you simply ignore is the capacity of adaptation not only from Mongols, but from European themselves (proven quite existing, by the heavily borrowings of Saracenic technics since the XIIth century). I don't see why, safe Mongols pull a Crusader Kings with millions of soldiers popping magically, they couldn't adapt as well (would it be only by "passive" warfare, as Charles V used against Edward III).

They had numbers to go against (I pointed out how, in another thread, how the limitations on medieval armies weren't a demographical but tactical issues that could be bypassed in some occasions), the motivation, the ressources (Eastern Europe, while not being deprived, wasn't nearly as wealthy than south and west Europe) and (but I could be convinced otherwise) what looks to me as a more militarized society than Russia or Poland.

Not that the situation wouldn't led to huge changes (as Barbaricum raids changed greatly the face of Late Roman Empire, roughly this scale) military (and therefore socially), politically, culturally. Not to mention the direct and more maintained connection between Europe and Asia trough steppes.
(Amusingly, it could, contrary to IOTL, make gundpowder be transmitted to European directly from Mongols, rather than trough Arabs. It may have "interesting" outcomes in Mediterranea. That's just one of the possibilities of course).

Just read the following:

First, I have to remember you I'm not responsible of what other people can say.
Then, it's not like Frederick Barbarossa II's argument were the same than mine.

That said.
- Roads. It is true that fluvial and maritime roads were preferred when avaible, at the point artificial channels were digged in cities. Administration of roads tended to be a mess (even if it got better since the XIIth century), while they were of course hugely used by armies.
It's not like any medieval road elsewhere was comparable to modern macadam roads anyway.
- Pastures. I don't think that's the issue, rather the quite limited european agricultural production. Mongol invasion prooving quite destructive (to say the least), and that a massivly horse-led army eats at least five or six as much than a less horse-based one (probably more when in perpetual campaign).
As I tried to point, that wil lturn into a war of attrition that Mongols, once too far from their bases, would have an hard time winning ( if at all) if they doesn't limit their ambitions, critically with tactics that were more about decisive open battle than troughly fighting for each piece of land. (While I certainly concede, that past a point, automatic submission a la Nievski would be to be expected).

My arguments are less about that, than original Mongol limitation on political-military organisation stability (still heavily tribal-based) and numbers.
Mongol conquest of Tibet and China do point that mountains and forest aren't a irreductible problem, but they had more than 30 times more troops, roughly half a million for the whole region. We're simply talking about a totally different scale.

Everybody who studied history of the Mongol conquests knows the famous campaign of Batu Khan in Rus which was unprecedented in the military world history - that brilliant campaign took place in winter.

I can, at the contrary, think of other campaigns taking place in winter. Of course that's only for some dates in Europe, so I don't doubt a second other people would think of other in Asia, Middle-East or Africa.

- Alexander in Bactria
- Caesar's campaigns during Gallic Wars (in -52, for example)
- Marcoman Wars (at the very least at one recorded occasion, on the frozen Danube, but giving the imperial presence on border during the winter, hardly the only time)
- German leagues and peoples crossing the frozen Rhine.

It is not to diminish the importance of Mongols being able to attack on winter (underlining they were quite free of agricultural needs from one hand, but still basing themselves on tribal institutions that proven be not that fitting for an attrition war), but that's hardly unprecedented.

I guess even an Italian knows that there is some problem in the North-West Rus with "proper pastures" during Russian winter. Well, I hope so.

No, seriously. Why gratious attacks on nationality are still tolerated there?

But guys, before speaking about the Mongol conquest, read some book about it. Damn, just google...

Then, advise something, unless to making circles saying "lol, you European racist". When you think to know more, you should as well be able to point out why and where to search. (At least, it's what I hope I do. If not, let's go by the "do as I say, not as I do" road, shall we?)

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Well put LSCatalina. You just saved me a ton of typing.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well put LSCatalina. You just saved me a ton of typing.

CatIlina, damnit!

 

[Herzen's love-child]

CatIlina, damnit!

Je suis vraiment désolé, LSCatilina, AutoSpell de mon iPhone insiste sur "Catalina".

I hate typing on a smartphone.....

 

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

alright fine Russian your right I am underestimating the mongols it seems. I do think though the mongols could conquer most of Europe but not the isalands or lagoon areas like venice and England or the ppyreenes and Spain. Up to France sure. I don't see how Im being called out. that's all im saying. The mongol army was powerful on the battlefield no doubt and could wipe the floor with any European army. All im saying is im sceptical ten years seems to short of a timeframe for such a long campaign at least for the mongols to reach france. that is all I am disagreeing with not its possible success. Of course without No doubt if the mongols army numbers were similar to those of their campaigns in China and Tibet then no doubt Europe would be conquered except for those areas that are islands or protected by the sea. And spain as well, crossing the Pyreenes is quite the ardous task you know?

 

[Emperor Julian]

alright fine Russian your right I am underestimating the mongols it seems. I do think though the mongols could conquer most of Europe but not the isalands or lagoon areas like venice and England or the ppyreenes and Spain. Up to France sure. I don't see how Im being called out. that's all im saying. The mongol army was powerful on the battlefield no doubt and could wipe the floor with any European army. All im saying is im sceptical ten years seems to short of a timeframe for such a long campaign at least for the mongols to reach france. that is all I am disagreeing with not its possible success. Of course without No doubt if the mongols army numbers were similar to those of their campaigns in China and Tibet then no doubt Europe would be conquered except for those areas that are islands or protected by the sea. And spain as well, crossing the Pyreenes is quite the ardous task you know?

Except that the Mongols in OTL did construct a massive navy in order to complete their invasion of China and to try to invade Japan. They failed (thanks in part to storm, bad luck, and stupidity), but there's nothing saying they can't build a navy in Europe as well. They crossed taller mountains than the Pyreenees (they conquered Afghanistan).

I think that if the Mongols are going to break into Europe, Italy should be their prime target. It isn't that far west of Hungary, and it is the wealthiest part of Europe at this time.

 

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

Except that the Mongols in OTL did construct a massive navy in order to complete their invasion of China and to try to invade Japan. They failed (thanks in part to storm, bad luck, and stupidity), but there's nothing saying they can't build a navy in Europe as well. They crossed taller mountains than the Pyreenees (they conquered Afghanistan).

I think that if the Mongols are going to break into Europe, Italy should be their prime target. It isn't that far west of Hungary, and it is the wealthiest part of Europe at this time.

right they cant build a navy as well but in the channel waters? Storms were commonplace look at what happened to the armada for example.

As for Spain yeah I guess they can cross the Pyreenes but so what if they build amassive navy the Italian city states have very large navies of over 200 galleys and control the medditeranian. Genoa and Venice at least are gonna be relatively untouched though the main peninsula of Italy may get conquered.

But yes if they want to break into Europe their target should be Italy, the dutch areas such as holande Antwerp bruges, and the hanse league areas.

 

[Russian]

that a massivly horse-led army eats at least five or six as much than a less horse-based one (probably more when in perpetual campaign)...
It is not to diminish the importance of Mongols being able to attack on winter...

Hm, I guess I did not make myself clear again.

You see we belong to different cultures and that might explain some misunderstanding.
Any little girl in Russia knows that a Mongolian horse could feed itself without assistance, on it's own in winter by hoofing out old grass and other frozen vegetation from under the snow. And I mean from "Russian" snow which means tons of snow and ice.

That's why when I hear about "dependence of the Mongol horse-based army on proper pastures" I might get irritated.

I somehow presumed that it is a common knowledge - the ability of the Mongolian horse to feed itself and survive extreme climatic conditions which were unthinkable for other horse-based armies.
That was one (of the many) explanations of the "Mongol world conquest".
But I was wrong, it is not a common knowledge.

That was my point when I mentioned "winter campaign of Batu Khan".

 

[scholar]

I don't think so. Not exactly good territory for large scale cavalry armies, Western Europe has rivers and forests and less in the way of open grassy plains. The Mongols disliked fighting in places that couldn't sustain their horses.

The myth that the Mongols only went in open grassy plains is completely fictitious.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Hm, I guess I did not make myself clear again.

You see we belong to different cultures and that might explain some misunderstanding.
Any little girl in Russia knows that a Mongolian horse could feed itself without assistance, on it's own in winter by hoofing old grass and other frozen vegetation from under the snow. And I mean from "Russian" snow which means tons of snow and ice.
But I was wrong, it is not a common knowledge.

That's why when I hear about "dependence of the Mongol horse-based army on proper pastures" I might get irritated.

I somehow presumed that it is a common knowledge - the ability of the Mongolian horse to feed itself and survive extreme climatic conditions which were unthinkable for other horse-based armies.
That was one (of the many) explanations of the "Mongol world conquest".

That was my point when I mentioned "winter campaign of Batu Khan".

Russian, are you just pissed off that your land spent 250 years under the Tatar yoke and we in the West, lucked out You're being pretty agro.

Just FYI, your style of discussion is not exactly winning hearts and minds, here. You might want to be more polite and less arrogant. Also, are "little girls" in Russia less intelligent than the "little boys"? You used "little girls" in a sense both derogatory and sexist by implication.

Also, you didn't address the bulk of LSCatilina's excellent points.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The myth that the Mongols only went in open grassy plains is completely fictitious.

As is the myth that the Mongols always fought from horseback. The Mongols were adaptable to terrain and climate.

 

[Russian]

Just FYI, your style of discussion is not exactly winning hearts and minds, here. You might want to be more polite and less arrogant...

Hm, what did you expect? Didn't you notice, that I am Russian?
We, Russians, are all this way. It is in our nature, being bad and evil, I mean.

 

[LSCatilina]

You see we belong to different cultures and that might explain some misunderstanding.
Any little girl in Russia knows that a Mongolian horse could feed itself without assistance

Does the little russian girls that Mongols (the guys fighting on horses) does need to eat as well?
Or that an horse on which you ask for sustained effort (critically on military purposes) does need regular and abundant food?

Damn, one would think by now, after having several armies defeated on their soil because they lacked logistics, Russians would have grasped the importance of it

That's why when I hear about "dependence of the Mongol horse-based army on proper pastures" I might get irritated.

Then you're get irritated for a wrong reason, and by your own fault as you didn't read my post properly.
I didn't said Mongols needed a given kind of pasture. I stated that a great army critically relying on cavalry, needed regular and relativly abundent ravitail, critically when it have to adapt its tactics.

The myth that the Mongols only went in open grassy plains is completely fictitious.

I agree, up to a point.
They indeed conquered whole regions that doesn't fit at all the "taiga/great steppe" stereotype, and weren't even close to be the first to do that (Several Türks did before them).
But, and that's an important "but", such regions were usually develloped and providing enough agricultural ressources.

Giving that Europe reached its maximum ration of production/consommation in the late XIIIth/early XIVth century (general famine was really close to happen when Black Death stroke); and that Mongols conquests were usually quite destructive (and would have been anyway a mandatory "weapon" in order to take the land; one can wonder how Mongols could both ravitail their armies, horses and face an hard conquest.

 

[John Farson]

The Solar System.