AHQ/AHD: Which of Empire had the best possibility of survival and continuation?

The Question for you is what does the board think is more plausible and has the greatest potential, between the varied Central Asian Empires which had at least a settled movement among itself.

First allow me to clarify terms. By survival, we refer to the particular empire surviving its initial threat in the POD given. Continuation, refers to lasting a fair period of time afterwards, this however must be achieved with continuity in administration, thus a new dynasty is allowed, but the empire's perception must remain the same (such as China or Rome or the Caliphates of the Arabs).

Thus without further adieu, the empires that we will be choosing from,

The Kushan empire POD 200 CE. The stipulations is to make the Kushan survive the period coming and also maintain its grip upon Central Asia. Bonus points if the Kushan can capture Tocharia and reinvigorate the Silk Road on the decline from this period on, or remedy its troubles in India.

The Hepthalite Empire and its vassals, POD 500 CE. The stipulations if for through some method, that the Hepthalites survive the Sassanid-Turkic alliance and either maintains its borders and powerbase where it exists or reforms itself as a principle power/empire within India (in effect as the Mughal Empire or the Ghurids/Delhi Sultanate).

The Qara Qhitan/Liao empire in Balasgan, 1150 CE. The survival rules are that the empire must resist the Mongol hordes and subdue the Kwarzemshahs through some method and form an empire claiming the Chinese empire but with borders similar to the Kushan Empire. Though if the poster feels more plausible the Mahakhitan cocnept more plausible, then this also is accepted method of survival.

The Kwarezmshah Empire, POD 1219 CE. Survival stipulates defeating the Mongol hordes and remaining the dominant power in its domains. Continuation refers to the Kwarezmshah creating a continuity in the region as opposed to what it was, a sort of haphazard collection of appendages.
 
No Samanids and Ghaznavids? They had a settled movement among themselves.

Samenids and Ghaznavids were not empires, they were technically subservient to the Abbasid Caliphate in legal terms. The Ghaznavids were also typically delegating their central Asian possessions to various Turkic Mamluks and governors. In terms of the Samenidds, I thought of adding them, however, as far as I know, they were simply emirs and technically vassals of the Abbasid throne. In opposition, the Saffarids and Kwarezmshah claimed a much wider net in terms of its claims and rejection of Abbasid hegemony in legal terms.
 
A poll would be great...

In my around 4 years on the site, it is often the case that polls encourage lazy answers. I prefer people to give some substance to a proposition as opposed to baseless or cursory poll answers. If you do not give any sort of answer or indication of preference and instead simply ask for a poll so that you may give an easy answer, then this proves my point to a degree, no?
 
Most of human history is a tale of migration. Ethnic groups move around, find (increasingly difficult) empty land and become settled peoples. They in turn end up being conquered by the next group of migrants and the cycle starts all over again. Living near Central Asia in Antiquity was like living around a dormant volcano. A group of nomads conquer a bunch of stuff, become civilized, and a couple of centuries later end up being conquered by the next group of nomads. It was only after the widespread adoption of gunpowder that these cycles came to an end.

So I would say that Kwarezmshah has the best chance of surviving just by being latest you gave. Ironically, the best way for Kwarezmshah to survive the Mongol onslaught is just being a good neighbor. If they had not offended Genghis with their poor diplomacy, the Mongols would have focused all their efforts on conquering China rather than going West.
 
Most of human history is a tale of migration. Ethnic groups move around, find (increasingly difficult) empty land and become settled peoples. They in turn end up being conquered by the next group of migrants and the cycle starts all over again. Living near Central Asia in Antiquity was like living around a dormant volcano. A group of nomads conquer a bunch of stuff, become civilized, and a couple of centuries later end up being conquered by the next group of nomads. It was only after the widespread adoption of gunpowder that these cycles came to an end.

So I would say that Kwarezmshah has the best chance of surviving just by being latest you gave. Ironically, the best way for Kwarezmshah to survive the Mongol onslaught is just being a good neighbor. If they had not offended Genghis with their poor diplomacy, the Mongols would have focused all their efforts on conquering China rather than going West.

A good neighbor would entail a total submission most likely. The Mongols in my estimation did not send envoys except to perpetuate its war machine and or extend its system of extended vassalage. The method is a way by which powers may expand by way of folding their territorial ambitions in notions of breaches of hospitality. The Kwarezmshah had every right to decimate the Mongol envoys, like you say, they understood that the cycle was vicious in this region by this period, the Mongols may wish to give peace for 20 years, but is peace guaranteed 100 years in the future? Will the Kwarezm be able to defend itself any better later? Once it is already submitted, nay it will be overran if it waits or decides to be too cautious or too appeasing. The more efficient Mongol policy was the early Hashashin policy and the Ababsid position, even though they were destroyed, this destruction was for reasons outside of their control, int he diplomacy side of events, the two contributed greatly to an effective diplomatic punishing of Mongol ambitions and in the case of both, caused even trepidation on the part of Hulegu, who according to the chronicles relayed to us, feared the ability of the Abbasid to defend itself and also feared the Hashashin woudl be able to be defeated without massive effort, as we know the fall of the Hashashin was internal betrayal of the fortresses and Abbasid assistance to the Mongol Ilkhans.

The Hashashin for instance int he early stages did not even negotiate with the Mongol hordes, opting instead to attempt assassinations and local resistance and threats. This to me was a better strategy for them to simply submit as the later Hashashin did and was immediately exterminated. Any sort of deals with such a dominating and ambitious power will lead to such a power enforce itself upon you, with a truly energetic and ambitious power, there can be no peace.
 
@John7755 يوحنا

The Kwarezmshah had the best chance of survivial in my opinion if they established diplomatic ties on their own terms (by turning away the envoy but later sending their own) and remain vigilant towards the Mongols while building up their own strength for their eventual confrontation with them.
 
If Khwarezmians act conciliatory to the Mongols while preparing themselves for a later conflict, could the Mongols remain preoccupied in China (which was not fully conquered until after far western areas like Kievan Rus') and even lose to the Song? Could the Mongol Empire begin falling apart to civil war earlier, long before overstretching themselves or is the inertia too great?
 
@John7755 يوحنا

The Kwarezmshah had the best chance of survivial in my opinion if they established diplomatic ties on their own terms (by turning away the envoy but later sending their own) and remain vigilant towards the Mongols while building up their own strength for their eventual confrontation with them.

Why do you find the Kwarezmshahs more skilled in the task than say the Hepthalite or Kushan or the Qhara Qhitai/Liao? Is there a particular reasoning?

Though, I tend to agree on the point of how the Kwarezmshah should have dealt with the situation. Murdering the envoy may have been a bit extreme and rash. The better choice is likely to have prepared for war without submitting anything diplomatically and rejecting any sort of pretense of vassalage or tribute and did as the Abbasid did, when demanded to pay tribute or submit to vassalage, the Abbasid requested that they instead submit to them and convert to Islam.
 
Why do you find the Kwarezmshahs more skilled in the task than say the Hepthalite or Kushan or the Qhara Qhitai/Liao? Is there a particular reasoning?

Although it's a long shot, if they established diplomatic ties with the Mongols, this would give them leg-room to centralized and fix their internal troubles before confronting them once again.
 
Hepthalites by a country mile -- the Sassanids and Turks were not so strong on their frontier as to overdetermine their decline, and they had a good amount of strength at the perfect moment of Gupta decline, which could allow them a conquest of the Indo-Gangetic plain and the survival of their empire once the Turks get too pushy.
 
The trouble with the former two is that not much specific information exists on why they declined AFAIK—there’s only the general “barbarians moved in” sort of records.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
So I would say Kushans. You see,most Central Asian empires.were nomadic and survived for a time before being taken over by the next empire. Kushans could have survived as they were both nomadic and settled. They were made up of mostly semi settled Tocharians and Sogdians and semi nomadic Scythians. If with proper strategies and planning,easily they could have survived.
 
So I would say Kushans. You see,most Central Asian empires.were nomadic and survived for a time before being taken over by the next empire. Kushans could have survived as they were both nomadic and settled. They were made up of mostly semi settled Tocharians and Sogdians and semi nomadic Scythians. If with proper strategies and planning,easily they could have survived.

Hmm, I tend to be sympathetic to this viewpoint. The main issue with the Kushanshahs is how to neutralize the possibility of a more militaristic and energetic Persian enemy. The Kushan could possibily have a better chance of facing the Hepthalites than the early Sassanids. Then there is the issue of alliances, the Hepthalite position was hampered by the ability of the Sassanids to acquire allies against the Hepthalites to their east in the form of the Gokturks. Had the Kushanshah resisted the Sassanids, they must still contend with the Gupta and possible steppe enemies, all forming powerful cadres with the Sassanid, isolating Kushanshah diplomatically.

Perhaps the Kushan can establish a sort of Roman alliance in the west and possibly a very short period of turmoil in China leads to order and then a Kushan-Chinese alliance against eastern foes. Allowing the Kushanshah to focus upon Hindu threats.
 
Top