Multiple heresies stop the church from holding culture together? Would that help in some small way?
AHC: Make the "Dark Ages" true?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
So, could the Latin Script have gotten extinct here in such a "worse Dark Ages" scenario with Europeans, once they start writing again, writing using a script derived from either the Tifinagh script of the Berbers or the Pahlavi script of the Persians or is that a bit too far-fetched?
Even without Christianity it's basically impossible for a Latin script that was used by a couple dozen of millions of people throughout half of Europe to be supplanted like that, if the Germanic people were able to learn and maintain Futhark for centuries why would Latin die?
I'm not quite sure I understood any of what your points were, but I'll try my best to respond.
Tang dynasty wouldn't be an issue for the Mongols, as Chinese dynasties basically followed a pattern of rebirth, corruption, and destruction at the hands of Bureaucrats and warlords. While the tang dynasty wasn't entirely decadent in the 7th and 8th centuries, it still followed the same systems of corruption and weak central government in the that paved the way for the dynasty's collapse in the following century. The Tang dynasty armies in this period were likely in the same state of being as the Song dynasty's armies were in the 13th century; large and imposing, yet unwieldy. This puts the Tang dynasty in roughly the same circumstances as the Song dynasty faced during the 13th-century Mongol invasion. It's important to note that in the unconventional style of warfare that the Mongols used, numbers are not the deciding factor. Genghis Khan made that readily apparent in his invasion of Western Xia when he turned the state's population against them, sending hundreds of thousands of refugees to inhabit the cities and create state-wide food shortages that would see the Chinese armies crippled and hindered in their ability to fight the Mongols in the first place.
As for invading Persia, it has to be noted that both Persian and Chinese forces based their military tactics around fortresses and cities. Mongol hordes were experts of siege warfare, and few armies could stand against the brutal tactics of Mongol military leaders.
As for the Tibetan empire, it's dumb to consider the Tibetans as a threat to the Mongols, simply because Mongol hordes don't follow the same logic of warfare. Genghis Khan never invaded Tibet, simply because it wasn't worth his time, nor did it have anything of use for his armies. Maps of the original Mongol horde's conquests are often incomplete or wrong, simply because the Mongol hordes didn't define borders the way we think of them today. Sure, the Tibetan Empire could muster its' forces, leaving the safety of the mountains and challenge the Mongol hordes on the open field, but that would be tantamount to suicide. Genghis Khan's original path of conquest conveniently passed over Tibet and he was able to invade Persia, even while the Khwarazmian Empire was (by many accounts) at the height of its power and the dominating dynasty in the middle-east. It wasn't until after his death that Tibet was invaded by a Mongol warlord seeking a stationary title and lands.
If you don't care for capturing and controlling cities and focus on securing trade routes and grazing pastures, your enemy has little chance of decisively defeating you with a traditional European/Middle-Eastern army.
Last edited:
While this is true, I'm not suggesting that the factors that led to Genghis Khan's rise were in place at the year 700. He asked what it would take to throw Europe into the dark ages, and I gave him an answer that would work.
A lot of people make this kind of mistake when thinking about warfare and raiding in the Medieval era. United Francia or not, a larger manpower pool doesn't help when you don't have the infrastructure or the time to muster an army to repel raiding parties. Viking raids were composed of hit-and-run tactics for roughly the first century of the Viking invasion and focused mainly on capturing loot and slaves for transport back to Scandinavia. It wasn't until the latter half of the Viking invasion that Viking bands settled in for long sieges.
As for the Vikings improving trade in Europe, that only applies to the villages and towns they Didn't burn to the ground while looting and pillaging.
As for the Mongol invasion, you also have to understand that a variety of factors could have led a Mongol horde to overthrow the Gokturks as regional hegemons. The Gokturk empire fell to political divisions, and the Mongols conquered the successor states that they left behind. It isn't too farfetched to believe a similar thing could happen, just earlier.
The main premise of this thread is to play around with scenarios that would see the light of Europe snuffed out. I could theoretically create a TL that shows just how such a thing could happen, but I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of thing that I can spell out in under 20,000 words.
Also, just for the record, you should check out how the Mongol hordes respond to a superior enemy army attempting to meet them on the battlefield. It doesn't matter how much you want to engage a Mongol horde in a fight, they aren't going to be engaging you unless it's on their terms.
Thomas1195
Banned
Unfortunately, 600 was when the Sassinid war was at the beginning stage, and Maurice had basically stabilized the Balkans before his death. Since the Mongols are likely to take on Persia first, they would basically give Heraclius a chance to secure the throne and strengthen the Empire in peace, and perhaps kicking the Lombard duchies south of Rome as well.
As for siege warfare, lots of siege techniques the Mongols used IOTL were simply not available in 600. They learned the siege warfare IOTL through battling weaker Chinese states before taking on Jin/Song. ITTL, they would have run into the Tang from the get go.
In addition, Roman cities were often coastal and thus could be resupplied by sea.
ok let me explain you said the period 600s ad so under the first tang emperor not under xuanzong so if this early mongol empire expands in the time frame of 620s to 650s its screwed the chinise will have enough power to challange it similar like the han did with the xiongnu
"The Tang dynasty armies in this period were likely in the same state of being as the Song dynasty's armies were in the 13th century; " what period fubbing or Jiedushi system tang wafare
Comparing them to sing warfare is really laughable
The Song military was chiefly organized to ensure that the army could not threaten Imperial control, often at the expense of effectiveness in war (this was do to a lushan and the other jeidushies that brought down the tang dynasty)
The tang on the other hand didnt care and in the early years the chinise armies where peasent lives but with generals thar where given much automonmy and incorporated foreign sytles tactics and even men from other cultures to better the army .
The Jiedushi reform gave the tang generals even more automonmy to deal with the other treats to the empire and instead of peasent levies now it was professional solders under great generals
This allowed the tang to kick out the Tibetans in the and even take transoxiana for a time .
The song and tang warfare where distinct since the song did their best to not imitate the tang
"As for invading Persia, it has to be noted that both Persian and Chinese forces based their military tactics around fortresses and cities." not in the 7th century again china and persia changed much you cant equate 13th century china and persia to 7th century one
persian warfare was more open to battle with fortifications with the noble houses of iran making the best troops of the now collpasing sassanid empire
In better days the houses would give the best cataphatcts and horse archers to figth the houses saved the sassnid empire from the hephthalites
" As for the Tibetan empire, it's dumb to consider the Tibetans as a threat to the Mongols, simply because Mongol hordes don't follow the same logic of warfare. Genghis Khan never invaded Tibet, simply because it wasn't worth his time, nor did it have anything of use for his armies. Maps of the original Mongol horde's conquests are often incomplete or wrong, simply because the Mongol hordes didn't define borders the way we think of them today. Sure, the Tibetan Empire could muster its' forces, leaving the safety of the mountains and challenge the Mongol hordes on the open field, "
really ... you are comparing the 13th century many kingdoms of tibet to the tibetan empire... the same tibetan empire that left the safty of the mountians many times to wrestle control of the tarrim basin from tang china on mutiple occations
same tarrim basin that was conceted to transoxiana and conected it to the mongolian heartland so yes the 7th century mongol empire assuming it reached transoxiana it would have to conquer the tarim basin as well place that the tibetans wanted
lot of people make this kind of mistake when thinking about warfare and raiding in the Medieval era. United Francia or not, a larger manpower pool doesn't help when you don't have the infrastructure or the time to muster an army to repel raiding parties. Viking raids were composed of hit-and-run tactics for roughly the first century of the Viking invasion and focused mainly on capturing loot and slaves for transport back to Scandinavia. It wasn't until the latter half of the Viking invasion that Viking bands settled in for long sieges.
Ignoring that the Vikings took advantage of a divided francia that said infrastructure collapsed slowly due to Louis and then his son fighting .
Viking going to loot was from 790s to 840s (at least in francia )
With the siege of Paris it changed to capture a city or raid and get paid to leave was much more attractive so it's looting plus capturing a city or be neuisence to get you to leave .
even then with the all of that Charles could have still fought instead of a paying a dane guild seeding a bigger army to deal with them but for that he need it the support of the nobles who hated him or didn't care
This doesn't apply for the two rulers I mentioned they could easily muster an army and their Lord would as well to kick the Vikings out also with a stable United francia what is stopping the Frankish king from fortifying his towns to make it harder for the Vikings to loot rollo reduced raids by fortifying normandy I don't see why the Frankish king wouldn't due this since as mentioned things are stable and the Viking raids would never be as bad as the 9th century ones
The only way I see this is that when the Frankish king dies the kingdom splits up and civil wars ensue that would allow for devasting raids
Yeah I did mention that the goturks where ok decline but that is why I mentioned how said proto mongol (because the Mongols as people didn't exist yet ) as mentioned their initial expasion itself would be curved by a rising tang dynasty that like the han could and most likely would take the figth to the steppe like the how the han did against the xiongu
And tibet under it's greatest emperors attacking them from the south if they do get to central Asia .
As for organization how do we assume that the proto mongol empire would have the same tactic and system as the otl mongol empire ?
As mentioned how does he get to Europe with tang china tibet preventing the expasion how does it conquer persia at what time do they reach Persia because by that point it might belong to the caliphate which would be another challenge
If it's takes the northern route how does it defeat the khazars i see even at best getting to transoxiana much less Europe unless your pod also screws up or prevents the rise of tibet ,china the khazars, and the caliphate
The Mongols as a people had existed for thousands of years, a lot like how both Turks and Armenians laid claim to the same areas around Anatolia for thousands of years. The changes that allowed Genghis Khan to form his massive empire only really emerged during his lifetime, and he ended many centuries-old traditions of the steppe tribe in order to make it possible. The Mongol people always existed, they just lacked the society and circumstances that allowed a man like Genghis Khan to prosper. Those circumstances could have easily been in place centuries before or after.
The central reason behind this is that the steppe tribes didn't function in the same way that European or even Chinese states did. The Gokturks were radically different from the Mongols, in both cultural and societal aspects.
The rising Tang dynasty likely wouldn't act to curb Mongol influence simply because they were Mongolian, and the Chinese only really promoted border warlords when they feared northern incursions. China would never have mustered an army to march into Mongolia, simply because such a thing isn't practical. The Mongolian tribes were hunter-gatherer societies and more importantly, they were nomadic. You cite the Xiongnu Empire as evidence that they would, but neglect to mention how the Xiongnu Empire was not subjected to an invasion of the Northern Steppes, but rather, evicted from their cities and permanent settlements along the Yellow River. This very invasion made the shortcomings of the Chinese armies prevalent when invading the steppe, as a lack of steady supplies halted the Chinese advance into the steppe and prevented them from being able to win a decisive victory against the nomadic tribes.
We would assume that the Mongols would have the same leadership style and social systems as Genghis Khan simply because that's what I said they would have to have in the original thread. Regardless of how that came about, Temujin's social reforms revolutionized how the Mongols fought, and were what enabled him to conquer the majority of the known world in the first place.
The Caliphate isn't a country, it's a religious position. Member states of the caliphate were simply Sunni states who agreed on a religious head. While they agreed that Muslim was the official religion of the Caliphate, the early crusades show us that the Islamic states were just as happy to see their neighboring Muslim nations destroyed as they were the crusaders.
The Khazars are a different party altogether, and confrontations against them would likely proceed in the typical tribal fashion: a single decisive battle between hordes would take place, with the winner taking all and the loser ending up dead or expelled from the territory. The Khazars, while powerful, weren't a very united people, and had an unstable system of succession, not to mention a population that was utterly dwarfed by Mongol hordes (excluding recruits and conscripts from conquered territories).
....ok this proved that you have no idea about early medieval history the caliphate was a country at the time it's was called the rashidun caliphate
What you mentioned does not occur until the late abassids caliphate post Fourth Fitna in 830
So I have no clue why you are comparing 1099 to 7th century islamic powers where they where absolutely different as they where under one ruler and where one empire and sure they where civil wars called fitnas but they where far in between the first Fitna and the second one are separated by 20 years and the second and third where separated by 50 years .
So you just proved by this goes to the abs forum let's see why
First I would like to respond thar the mongols didn't technically exist they where proto mongolic people like the kitans
"The changes that allowed Genghis Khan to form his massive empire only really emerged during his lifetime, and he ended many centuries-old traditions of the steppe tribe in order to make it possible. The Mongol people always existed, they just lacked the society and circumstances that allowed a man like Genghis Khan to prosper. Those circumstances could have easily been in place centuries before or after."
Let's see a simbalence of a union like the khamag mongol (no)
Centuries of the co existing culture between the tribes (no ) in fact there were many other people there like the ruling goturks Ughyurs and more that has nothing in common with the proto mongols aside from both being nomads
China divided in to an outsider group that the local han chinise disliked with an idiot emperor leading them and a southern china thar actively undermined it's generals and military due to fears of them rebelling? No quite the opposite actually
No power thar would challenge the proto mongols from the south for control of central Asia ? Nope we got the tibetan empire
Okay I take issue with this premise. The term "barbaric" is relative. While some of these tribes could be brutal, they weren't composed of idiots. Atilla despite being called the "scourge of God" was a pragmatic individual. He like the other "barbarian tribes" didn't want to kill Rome. Why kill the Golden Goose that's so profitable?
The Goths that became a threat to the Romans by the time of Adrianople were so dangerous because they had been romanizing due to many years of contact with the Romans. Through roman trade networks these tribes themselves became more urbanized and gained access to Roman technology. Roman Emperors like Valens were shocked at how the supposedly barbarian tribes had advanced. These tribes by the 5th century were now at parity with the Romans.
Also the battle of Adrianople was devastating for the Romans, its significance is often overstated. Rome fell more because of political idiocy among the ruling class and economic crisis more than military defeats. Other subsequent Emperors managed to score victories against groups like the Goths with even less resources than the Romans had pre-Adrianople.
Without all the knowledge about Roman tactics, and access to Roman technology how would they beat the Romans. They'd also need access to siege technology to take some of the major cities as well. And its pretty improbable that they'd burn Roman cities to the ground when its more likely that the cities would probably pay them instead to leave them alone.
We are going to ignore this then ?
that the tang invaded the steepe and held on to it for about a century
QUOTE="MaxiMaxe, post: 21089376, member: 125079"]
. You cite the Xiongnu Empire as evidence that they would, but neglect to mention how the Xiongnu Empire was not subjected to an invasion of the Northern Steppes, but rather, evicted from their cities and permanent settlements along the Yellow River. This very invasion made the shortcomings of the Chinese armies prevalent when invading the steppe, as a lack of steady supplies halted the Chinese advance into the steppe and prevented them from being able to win a decisive victory against the nomadic tribes.[/QUOTE]
Eh sure if we ignore that later on Emperor Wu of Han
Decided to bring the figth to the steppe and sent 150k men to deal with them resulting in the desicive defeat of the xiongu at Mobei deep in to modern mongolia and huo marched from the dai prefecture 1000 miles to the north after the campaing the xiongu never recovered and continued to loose to then han and decline
Thomas1195
Banned
Yet Attila managed to wipe Aquileia off the earth, while sacking Milan, Padua, Verona... in the same campaign - the Romans were simply a punching bag during that invasion. And the Huns did not have early contact with the Romans, unlike the Goths.