AHC: Make the "Dark Ages" true?

[Goldensilver81]

"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"

Ok so we have a leader like chenghis how does the exact or very similar set of social system that where linked in some aspects to chenghis khan own unique life are repeated?
Even as unlikely as it is chengis also had some luck that early own he faced stupid leaders like Sha Muhammed II or the emperor of the jin
Here alt chengis would be facing Taizong or his father under great generals
Mangsong Mangtsen and his great men etc
All where larger then live figures

So you want me to says that a chenghis khan of the 7th century United the proto mongols made the exact same or very similar specific reforms some of which where made by specific thing that olt chenghis has to go through and not even a general motivation to expand unlike the otl since with out chenghis climate change would have caused a mongol movement thing thar doesn't exist in the 7th century .

defeated the tang defeated , the tibetan empire
The caliphate the khazars and went as far as they Byzantines somehow do I need to say more why this is abs ? It's fun to think about yes I do addmit that

 

[Goldensilver81]

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.

By the time he did atilla the huns had contact with the Romans for about some 50 ish years that city was one of the last after if you can say gaining experience in the east before
And only did because he took advantage of the Byzantine sassanid war of 440

 

[Thomas1195]

By the time he did atilla the huns had contact with the Romans for about some 50 ish years that city was one of the last after if you can say gaining experience in the east before
And only did because he took advantage of the Byzantine sassanid war of 440

Sassinid war was an eastern affair by 440. In 452, he rolled over the Western Empire, razing Aquileia. It was likely that he would havr returned to finish Rome had he lived on.

 

[Goldensilver81]

Sassinid war was an eastern affair by 440. In 452, he rolled over the Western Empire, razing Aquileia. It was likely that he would havr returned to finish Rome had he lived on.

That's why I was referring to when he sacked the east in 440 atilla had much experience dealing with Román fortifications by 450s
Also unlikely that he would have finished
As the East Roman force had crossed the Danube and defeated the local forces there thar combined with the deaths caused in the catalonian plains and more meant that atilla needed to get out of there .

 

[SunKing105]

Sassinid war was an eastern affair by 440. In 452, he rolled over the Western Empire, razing Aquileia.

Part of why he was successful there was because of the money gained by the extortion of the ERE for tribute, which was made in part possible by the war.

 

[Sārthākā]

Sassinid war was an eastern affair by 440. In 452, he rolled over the Western Empire, razing Aquileia. It was likely that he would havr returned to finish Rome had he lived on.

considering Atilla considered withdrawing from Aquileia before one assault broke the siege, considering it a roll over is very disingenuous.
I am guessing the Battle of Catalaunian Plains, The Hunnic Famines, etc etc......were roll overs.....

 

[Thomas1195]

considering Atilla considered withdrawing from Aquileia before one assault broke the siege, considering it a roll over is very disingenuous.

You cannot call sacking 5-10 (walled) cities including Milan (once the capital of the Empire for a time) other than a roll over, and this invasion occurred after Catalaunian Plains. These fortified cities were supposed to stand for months, if not a year or more, especially Aquileia, a coastal which could be resupplied by sea.

By the way, we cannot talk about Catalaunian without talking about the Visigoths. Well, in 452, there were no Visigoth troops around to save their asses (fortunately, the Eastern Empire took over that role).

the deaths caused in the catalonian plains and more meant that atilla needed to get out of there

You know, given the fact that this invasion occurred after Chalons, you can see how fucked the Western Empire was by that time.

 

[MaxiMaxe]

....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
View attachment 586794 the caliph unlike the later middle ages was ruler of the empire
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 .

How could you actually get it so wrong...

1. The image you posted is of the Rashidun Caliphate towards the year 662, which, would be shortly after the Caliphate conquered Persia, and shortly before the Caliphate underwent the first Fitna. You then proceed to use that as an image as a source for as to why the Rashidun Caliphate (in our scenario) would interfere if the Mongols showed up to conquer Persia, in the year 600 AD.

2. After the Caliphate conquered Persia, the Rashidun Caliphate became the Umayyad Caliphate after the first fitna, and member states became more autonomous. Despite this, regions under the Rashidun were still organized through local Sultanates. The time period between the conquest of Persia and the first Fitna was a period of unrest in Persia, as there were only 2 years between the end of the conquest and the succession crisis. The Caliph became the steward of the Caliphate, not the absolute ruler. Most nations under the Rashidun Caliphate were also autonomous, and free to propagate conflicts with each other. Even if you had gotten the date right in part 1, you would still be wrong on this account.

 

[MaxiMaxe]

We are going to ignore this then ?

View attachment 586797
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.

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
[/QUOTE]

I legitimately did not know about this battle, and so I'll give you that. However, you're also blatantly ignoring the fact that Xiongu made use of much of the same tactics as the Chinese, preferring to field the majority of their army as infantry and engaging the Chinese in a head on confrontation with fewer troops. Such a tactical error is one that a Mongol horde wouldn't have made, simply because the tactics in usage are different.

The evidence is in the numbers. In the battle of Mobei, the Xiongu fielded near 180,000 troops while the Chinese had nearly double that amount. The Xiongu fielded only 80,000 cavalry of their 180,000, while the Chinese fielded just as many with double their infantry.

Compare this with the Mongol invasion of Wei, where the Genghis Khan crushed 300,000 men at the battle near the yellow river with 180,000 horsemen.

 

[MaxiMaxe]

"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"

Ok so we have a leader like chenghis how does the exact or very similar set of social system that where linked in some aspects to chenghis khan own unique life are repeated?
Even as unlikely as it is chengis also had some luck that early own he faced stupid leaders like Sha Muhammed II or the emperor of the jin
Here alt chengis would be facing Taizong or his father under great generals
Mangsong Mangtsen and his great men etc
All where larger then live figures

So you want me to says that a chenghis khan of the 7th century United the proto mongols made the exact same or very similar specific reforms some of which where made by specific thing that olt chenghis has to go through and not even a general motivation to expand unlike the otl since with out chenghis climate change would have caused a mongol movement thing thar doesn't exist in the 7th century .

defeated the tang defeated , the tibetan empire
The caliphate the khazars and went as far as they Byzantines somehow do I need to say more why this is abs ? It's fun to think about yes I do addmit that

You act as though it's impossible to think about but the factors are there. If you look at history objectively, it seems farfetched that a bunch of horse nomads from the steppes of Mongolia could conquer an empire that stretched from the Korean peninsula to the Black sea. The reason it didn't happen in the 7th century is because the right factors weren't in place to start the chain of events, but it's not entirely unfeasible.

The "holes" you've poked in my arguments are superficial at best, and you have a habit of using specific arguments when arguing about an infinite range of factors and possibilities that could take place

As fun as it is correcting you, I'm getting an aneurism from your grammar and would prefer it if you would just run your writing through an autocorrect software before you post.
Thanks.

 

[Goldensilver81]

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

I legitimately did not know about this battle, and so I'll give you that. However, you're also blatantly ignoring the fact that Xiongu made use of much of the same tactics as the Chinese, preferring to field the majority of their army as infantry and engaging the Chinese in a head on confrontation with fewer troops. Such a tactical error is one that a Mongol horde wouldn't have made, simply because the tactics in usage are different.
[/QUOTE]
The han didn't out number the hand had close to a 2x1 advantage with 300 k troops while the xiongu had 180 k
And Actuallythe han used clever tactics to win the battle
As the han army divided Wei Qing did not have the main force while he did face the main force of the xiongu it was the chinise not the nomads who held numerical advantage the chinse general in response put chariots to guard his troops (kinda like a wagon fort ) and used his more pressice archers and crossbowmen to attack any xiongu who came to fire arrows upon them , these same units killed any one who tried to interfere or dislodge the chariots
And the battle grew to a stalemate despite the han being outnumbered and when night fell and a dust storm apeared the han general took advantage and slaughter the xiongu
Then was joined by his allied successful from the East and burned down Zhao Xin

 

[MaxiMaxe]

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

All I can see here is you arguing my points for me. You continuously pretend like the Empires of the 7th century would be fighting the Mongols of the 7th century, while glorifying and overexaggerating their effectiveness from data collected on their confrontations with conventional armies. You really have no idea about how the Mongols waged warfare and it shows.

 

[MaxiMaxe]

I legitimately did not know about this battle, and so I'll give you that. However, you're also blatantly ignoring the fact that Xiongu made use of much of the same tactics as the Chinese, preferring to field the majority of their army as infantry and engaging the Chinese in a head on confrontation with fewer troops. Such a tactical error is one that a Mongol horde wouldn't have made, simply because the tactics in usage are different.

The han didn't out number the hand had close to a 2x1 advantage with 300 k troops while the xiongu had 180 k
And Actuallythe han used clever tactics to win the battle
As the han army divided Wei Qing did not have the main force while he did face the main force of the xiongu it was the chinise not the nomads who held numerical advantage the chinse general in response put chariots to guard his troops (kinda like a wagon fort ) and used his more pressice archers and crossbowmen to attack any xiongu who came to fire arrows upon them , these same units killed any one who tried to interfere or dislodge the chariots
And the battle grew to a stalemate despite the han being outnumbered and when night fell and a dust storm apeared the han general took advantage and slaughter the xiongu
Then was joined by his allied successful from the East and burned down Zhao Xin
[/QUOTE]

I believe I asked you to write comprehendible sentences.

Whether you're referring to Battle of Mobei Deep or the Battle of Mayi, you're wrong on both accounts.

This also doesn't disprove my prior statements about Xiongu tactics, or how Mongol tactics differed from them.

 

[Goldensilver81]

How could you actually get it so wrong...

1. The image you posted is of the Rashidun Caliphate towards the year 662, which, would be shortly after the Caliphate conquered Persia, and shortly before the Caliphate underwent the first Fitna. You then proceed to use that as an image as a source for as to why the Rashidun Caliphate (in our scenario) would interfere if the Mongols showed up to conquer Persia, in the year 600 AD.

2. After the Caliphate conquered Persia, the Rashidun Caliphate became the Umayyad Caliphate after the first fitna, and member states became more autonomous. Despite this, regions under the Rashidun were still organized through local Sultanates. The time period between the conquest of Persia and the first Fitna was a period of unrest in Persia, as there were only 2 years between the end of the conquest and the succession crisis. The Caliph became the steward of the Caliphate, not the absolute ruler. Most nations under the Rashidun Caliphate were also autonomous, and free to propagate conflicts with each other. Even if you had gotten the date right in part 1, you would still be wrong on this account.

Wait wait wait the proto mongols show up to Persia in 600 ad?
I thought the pod was in the 7th century and it wouldn't take a year to unite the steppe
Well in this changes things as now
But before that

1) no that picture is the caliphate in 654 , persia was conquered in 651

2) sultans in 7th century arabia ... Right I mean if we are looking at what we think when he say sultan those only showed up in tenth century how ever if you are looking at just the word even then it's wrong the governors where called Wali

3) yes the governor where given a lot of automonmy but no where near post 4th Fitna where there tittles whew hereditary or that they fought because the caliph still had actual power and was more than a figure head

" The Caliph became the steward of the Caliphate, not the absolute ruler. Most nations under the Rashidun Caliphate were also autonomous, and free to propagate conflicts with each other. Even if you had gotten the date right in part 1, you would still be wrong on this account."

The caliph was absolute ruler in the 7th and 8th centuries the fitnas where fought for who would become caliph speaking of which if they where free to propegate conflicts with each other and the caliph was not the absolute ruler how come aside from the fitnas we never see any conflict between the Muslim "states " or more accurately governors like we see in the 10th century could it be because the central authority still had authority?

 

[Goldensilver81]

You act as though it's impossible to think about but the factors are there. If you look at history objectively, it seems farfetched that a bunch of horse nomads from the steppes of Mongolia could conquer an empire that stretched from the Korean peninsula to the Black sea. The reason it didn't happen in the 7th century is because the right factors weren't in place to start the chain of events, but it's not entirely unfeasible.

The "holes" you've poked in my arguments are superficial at best, and you have a habit of using specific arguments when arguing about an infinite range of factors and possibilities that could take place

As fun as it is correcting you, I'm getting an aneurism from your grammar and would prefer it if you would just run your writing through an autocorrect software before you post.
Thanks.

That's the point tho... In history things some times occur only once because they need a certain number of very spefic conditions that would not be easy or near impossible to replicate.

This is why the mongols didn't go in conquest before or after because those very specific conditions where not met , as mentioned may things that allowed the mongols successes in the otl don't exist in the 7th century and you would have to apply abs or something near close to it to make them close

You would need a strong leader like chenghis have him survive do social and army changes that match the ones of chenghis , have people be as loyal to him as chenghis men where so thar he doesn't get killed and that is bearly scratching the surface.

"As fun as it is correcting you, I'm getting an aneurism from your grammar and would prefer it if you would just run your writing through an autocorrect software before you post."

Yes I do apologise iam in mobile and bilingualism tends to do that to me since I would usually not have this problem in pc
As in correcting me well Iam not the one who beloved sultans existed in early caliphate

 

[Goldensilver81]

All I can see here is you arguing my points for me. You continuously pretend like the Empires of the 7th century would be fighting the Mongols of the 7th century, while glorifying and overexaggerating their effectiveness from data collected on their confrontations with conventional armies. You really have no idea about how the Mongols waged warfare and it shows.

Oh I do actually but as I said how would the proto mongols be as effective have the same system as the mongols of the otl again as I said why would they ?

And why wouldn't the powers of the 7th century fight them china is an obvious answer
Tibet because it wanted the tarim basin
The caliphate (assuming the conquest of alt mongols start later in the 7th century )

 

[Goldensilver81]

The han didn't out number the hand had close to a 2x1 advantage with 300 k troops while the xiongu had 180 k
And Actuallythe han used clever tactics to win the battle
As the han army divided Wei Qing did not have the main force while he did face the main force of the xiongu it was the chinise not the nomads who held numerical advantage the chinse general in response put chariots to guard his troops (kinda like a wagon fort ) and used his more pressice archers and crossbowmen to attack any xiongu who came to fire arrows upon them , these same units killed any one who tried to interfere or dislodge the chariots
And the battle grew to a stalemate despite the han being outnumbered and when night fell and a dust storm apeared the han general took advantage and slaughter the xiongu
Then was joined by his allied successful from the East and burned down Zhao Xin

I believe I asked you to write comprehendible sentences.

Whether you're referring to Battle of Mobei Deep or the Battle of Mayi, you're wrong on both accounts.

This also doesn't disprove my prior statements about Xiongu tactics, or how Mongol tactics differed from them.
[/QUOTE]
I have taken it to consideration as far as the battles instead of looking at the box where it says the numbers how about you actually read it and then even wikipedia will say Wei Qing was outnumbered
And won due to defensive tactics and the sandstorm

 

[Goldensilver81]

How could you actually get it so wrong...
So the proto mongol would show up in Persia in
600 AD.

Ok so the pod must be at least 590 or 580s for one the turkick khaganates would be stronger
There is no Tibetan empire even though Namri Songtsen already conquered and unified much of the tibet and Songtsen Gampo is alive
no tang china but sui china is there .

Central Asia is under the goturks under , the hephthalites and other smaller powers worse of all for our proto mongols is thar sassnid Persia is fine as the Byzantine sassnid war has not begun .
sure khosrow II was not the best but he for the most part (at least at first ) left his commander do their thing so the proto mongols who be facing a Persian empire that is magnitudes stronger and stabler than the kharezmian empire and even if by some chance they conquered Persia the Byzantine empire by 600
Was doing fine maurice was on the verge of winning the war with the avars
And again the Byzantine sassnid war doesn't occur
So we swapped china and tibet as great powers with Persia and the Romans with stronger turks
And given that the Romans will even more time due to the mongols being busy in Persia because they are not going to conquer it in 3 years or so .

 

[Goldensilver81]

Because as when I talked to jack wilson aka the jackmeister mongol history he said :

"Now, how would a war against a Persian Empire go? Let us compare to the Khwarezmian Empire. The Khwarezmain realm was very strong on paper, but a bit of a giant with feet of clay. Most of that empire south of Khursan had only been taken since 1200, so there was no long built institutional structure to give it strength. The ruling dynasty was Turkic, as was their main armies by the time of the invasion. However, these armies were Qipchaqs employed directly by the Khwarezm-shah, rather than raised from local Persian/iranian populations. The Qipchaps mistreated the local peoples and often, when the going got tough, abandoned the Khwarezmians. State and army were inherently fragile, and there was no Khwarezmian identity to keep the empire together in case of emergency. Infamously, when the Mongols attacked, the Khwarezmian leadership struggled to land on a plan of defense. While we might argue which was the best plan, the defense they ultimately chose allowed the Mongols to overrun Transoxania, Khurasan and Khwarezm itself city by city, and exasperate all the inherent weaknesses of the Khwarezmian state. To top it off, the Khwarezm-shah himself, Ala al-Din Muhammad, was overconfident in his abilities, yet terrified of the Mongols, knew nothing about their capabilities and lacked the ability to find out. Cowardly and unorganized, he was the absolute worst person to go against Chinggis Khan, a master organizer and leader who gathered all he could learn about his foe. Not a contest of equals, but rather more of an expert combatant attacking an amateur who was flailing his arms madly. "

Another aspect of this, is that the Khwarezmian empire was based in Transoxania/Khwarezm and expanded south and east, when the Khwarezmians were attacked, it was their most important, longest held territory which was hit first: cutting the head off the snake

so none of this applies to 600 ad Persia like not a single thing