Age of despotism: Mongol overlords of Middle Europe for centuries

What if the Mongols pull a Russia with the HRRE states (after defeating Poland,Hungary,etc.) battle them successfully into submisson (they probably didn´t take the lord´s castles) and rule as supreme lords of vast Middle European territory for at least two centuries. They occasionally raid the German states and enslave the population. In order to pay the extraordinary tributes, the princes, clerical princes and fiefs have to increase the ammount of the tithe. Also the feudal system becomes much more despotic and beeing a serf is even worse. Even the free cities are not an option anymore. Despotic rule becomes a norm among Westen Christian States. The mentality of the nobility,clergy and populance is shaped by Asian despotic pungency and abjectness.

I did us an online dictionary, I might have used vocabulary i didn´t intend to use. So there might to some users a wrong impression of offensive language towards certain cultures (I unwisely used geographic and cultural simplifications, at least thats what people seem to interpret).
 
Last edited:
Eventually,you will see what happened in the Yuan dynasty--massive peasant rebellions which deposed both the feudal lords and the Mongols.

What religion does the Mongols follow in this timeline?
 
Eventually,you will see what happened in the Yuan dynasty--massive peasant rebellions which deposed both the feudal lords and the Mongols.

What religion does the Mongols follow in this timeline?

Depends on the time they conquer . I offhanded thought traditionel Shamanist belief system, but that could change by time easily. The segment of Mongol rule of this part of Europe would certainly seperate itself in diffferent Khanates, too. Not sure, if Islam would play a role or Nestorianism.
 
Despotic rule becomes a norm among Westen Christian States. The mentality of the nobility,clergy and populance is shaped by Asian despotic pungency and abjectness.

Excuse me, are you insinuating that Westerners were not despotic until Asians arrived?

Look at the examples of Rome.
 
Excuse me, are you insinuating that Westerners were not despotic until Asians arrived?

Look at the examples of Rome.

No, I do not want to play off sombody against another . I just want to suggest a certain cultural different ruling priciple, that was later reffered as despotic, implemented in the "West". So my idea is, that certain ideas which eventually lead to the age of enlightment do not take of/are not developed in such a timeline.
My "personal affection"has nothing to do with this for Im primely here for entertainment. I do not intend to offend you.
 
Excuse me, are you insinuating that Westerners were not despotic until Asians arrived?

Look at the examples of Rome.

No such insinuation was made.

The examples of Rome are irrelevant. The OP spoke of Middle Europe, which was feudal and therefore indeed significantly less despotic than the largest civilizations in Asia and the various Mongol Khanates of the same time period. Middle Europe was less centralized with a powerful aristocracy. Whether oligarchy is preferable to despotism is a discussion for another website, but it is certainly not the case that every civilization on earth has always been exactly as despotic, or oligarchic, or democratic or what have you as every other civilization. Some places were more despotic than others at different points in time.

It is not an insult against certain groups of modern people to say that certain parts of the world 800 years ago had a form of government which could be described as despotic in a strict sense of the word. Nor is it an insult to say that Germany around the same time was feudal, even if "feudal" is sometimes used to connote backwardness. Nor, furthermore, is your correct assessment that Rome in its Imperial phase had a despotic form of government an insult against the people of today's Italy. Honestly, it's not even an insult against the people of ancient Rome; it's a simple analysis.
 
I would like to say despotism comes in many forms and it existed in equal measure in both hemispheres in ancient and medieval times. Caligula slept with the senator's wives and Qin Huangdi had the harsh punishments of Legalism. So too did we have stuff in medieval Europe like Joan of Arc's serial killer friend zone ally, deporting all the minorities from Spain after the Reconquista and the average peasant oppressing, while the Mongols were building pyramids of skulls.

Mongol rule did have a marked cultural effect on Eastern Europe that does culturally influence Russia and other nations in the region indirectly to this day. It did form the authoritarian character of traditions of rulership there. Russia before the hordes had republics like Novgorod.

However, both regions could do despotism, and I think Mongol rule and culture had many benefits such as religious tolerance and diplomatic immunity.
 
I would like to say despotism comes in many forms and it existed in equal measure in both hemispheres in ancient and medieval times. Caligula slept with the senator's wives and Qin Huangdi had the harsh punishments of Legalism. So too did we have stuff in medieval Europe like Joan of Arc's serial killer friend zone ally, deporting all the minorities from Spain after the Reconquista and the average peasant oppressing, while the Mongols were building pyramids of skulls.

Mongol rule did have a marked cultural effect on Eastern Europe that does culturally influence Russia and other nations in the region indirectly to this day. It did form the authoritarian character of traditions of rulership there. Russia before the hordes had republics like Novgorod.

However, both regions could do despotism, and I think Mongol rule and culture had many benefits such as religious tolerance and diplomatic immunity.

The Mongols turned religiously intolerant,and Russia was also religiously intolerant.Diplomatic immunity existed in nearly everywhere before the Mongols.
 
I would like to say despotism comes in many forms and it existed in equal measure in both hemispheres in ancient and medieval times...However, both regions could do despotism, and I think Mongol rule and culture had many benefits such as religious tolerance and diplomatic immunity.

That's what I meant.

I just thought that the OP said that "The mentality of the nobility,clergy and populance is shaped by Asian despotic pungency and abjectness", which would mean that the population is changed by Asian despotism.

But remember, despotism has been there before. Legacy of Rome and all.
 
Despotism was all over Europe, on a smaller scale due to feudalism, with lords and such. In the east it was in a larger scale due to the centralization of empires.
 
Just so people know the orientel despotism theory of marx has been discredited.From the standpoint of economic and social history till the 1800s the materiel and living conditions of peaseants in europe and asia was similiar. In fact till 1500s the asian peasant was far better off than his european counterpart. The nobles and priests of europe themselves were despotic that is what manorialism was.
 
Last edited:
I'm not seeing exactly what changed, so I don't know the result.

Does Subotai perform some kind of magic in Hungary so that the first conquest pushes through? Do subsequent raids result in German states paying rather than suffering? Does France form an unholy alliance to beat the HRE?

These are rather critical questions to determine the end-result.
 
It's rare to see the Oriental Despotism cliché in action again.
Despotism means absolute power, and the term generally has a negative connotation. Rulers throughout Asia had checks - both practical and ideological - on their power. The occasional actual despots, like Prince Hailing of Jin, often don't have a history of ending up well.
ETA: Didn't see this, but "pungency and abjectness" is a terrible descriptor for East Asian forms of rule. Not to mention that the steppe was much less despotic (it was a realm where Zhong had less value), as we may see with Yelü Dashi's actions towards Tianzhu.
 
No, I do not want to play off sombody against another . I just want to suggest a certain cultural different ruling priciple, that was later reffered as despotic, implemented in the "West". So my idea is, that certain ideas which eventually lead to the age of enlightment do not take of/are not developed in such a timeline.
My "personal affection"has nothing to do with this for Im primely here for entertainment. I do not intend to offend you.
You used the words "pungency" and "abjectness," both rather classic Oriental Despotism terminology, so it's almost natural for someone to interpret that as you assigning value judgements to forms of government. A second problem is that I think (forgive me if I'm mistaken) you're generalizing Asia into having one "ruling principle." IIRC there's an interesting example of a late Yuan Central Asian official doing things not exceptionally out of the line for a West Asian Grand Vizier and getting universally reviled for his actions by the Confucian bureaucracy. So a sultan is not a Huangdi is not a khan. A Dashen is not a Vizier is not a Beile. A consulate is not a jurist council is not a chieftains' meeting. There was no "Oriental despotism" and there was no "Asian ruling principle." There were a diverse number of forms of government, most of which took measures to avoid being too dependent on the monarch.
 
The whole original prompt is just bizarre. Apart from the orientalism and racist connotations there's not really an actual question - although it starts with "what if".

This would make a fun DBWI if inverted. "What if some Occidental power subjected a fourth of the world, including wealthy regions like India, to traditional occidental barbarism and atrocities? How long would it take the world to recover?"

Followed by a string of people arguing the west wasnt as savage as popularly conceived or something.
 
Just so people know the orientel despotism theory of marx has been discredited.From the standpoint of economic and social history till the 1800s the materiel and living conditions of peaseants in europe and asia was similiar. In fact till 1500s the asian peasant was far better off than his european counterpart. The nobles and priests of europe themselves were despotic that is what manorialism was.

This reminds me... when a friend of mine told me he'd read a book about Sengoku Era Japan, and he was astonished by how miserable was the life of the average Japanese peasant in this times. And he pointed out that until at least the late 19th Century those conditions barely improved.

And then I just retorted: "How the hell is this different from the lives of the average European all the way to the late 19th Century?". He didn't grasp my point... kept insisting that the Asians in general lived in far worse conditions than a Medieval serf due to the fact that the Shogun/Emperor (and likewise in China and Korea) could do whatever he wanted, which I disagree. If anything, every lower caste in every organized polity in Eurasia would suffer terrible life conditions, as the sociopolitical system itself was oppressive.
 
Top