Challenge: the Second Mongol Empire

Ignoring, of course, the Northern Yuan Dynasty which existed in Mongolia until the 16th century.


What would it take for the Mongols (maybe the Khalka and Oirat are unified by Altan Khan and stay unified too) to invade China, then continue their conquest into Persia, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Levant, the Caucasus and Anatolia?

I was thinking it would happen some time in the 16th or 17th century. Maybe while Ming is in chaos, the Mongols invade Ming, but also destroy the Manchu? WOuld that be a good starting point, or would something else work better?
 
By XVIth-XVIIth century, the demographics and the technological disparity simply did not favor another steppe empire. Some time by the end of the XVth century, the demographical balance has shifted irretrievably towards the settled, sedentary, civilized areas, and technological development taking place in such areas meant that steppe armies were hopelessly outclassed. There is a reason Tamerlane's conquests were the last large-scale conquest by a "steppe army", and even then, it was stretching it. Babur's later conquests were on much smaller scale, and using an army that was less like the Mongol armies than those of his predecessors.

To put it simple, a XVIth-XVIIth century steppe army, whose strength is based on extreme mobility, may face problems when trying to stand against contemporary armies that rely less on wild cavalry charges, and more on superior firepower, such as cannon, firearms, etc. To put it simple, Ghenghiz Khan's army has nothing to answer even the XVIth century cannon with, and if it tries to compete with cannon-equipped armies on their own terms by creating their own artillery, they would lose their greatest advantage, which is mobility and coordination. By creating an obvious sedentary position, you have to create a battle plan that minimizes your mobility advantage, which makes you just another XVIth century army. And by XVIth century, there were simply not enough Mongols to form a large, well-trained military force capable of standing toe-to-toe with Chinese, Russian, Ottoman, or Western European armies.

Finally, let's consider who such an would-be Second Mongol Empire would face. China is probably the easiest picking, due to much internal unrest and fractious nature of the country at the time. But even then, Mongol army would be outnumbered, and the Chinese might prove more of a dangerous opponent this time around, if only due to being more technologically advanced, with higher population, and with the experience of having fought the Mongols before (even if it was three centuries, I would imagine the first thing any would-be Chinese general would do is do his research, if he has half a functioning brain).

Then, there is the Timurid/Moghul Empire in India, who can claim at least some descent from Ghenghiz Khan, who are well entrenched, familiar with steppe tactics to an extent, and, I believe, sufficiently well equipped with reasonably modern (for the time) weaponry, and have a large, well-trained army. Even if the Second Mongol Empire bypasses them completely, and goes further West, things don't get easier. The Ottomans are near the peak of their power, their army is well-supplied, well-equipped, and armed with some of the most modern weapons of the time. Not to mention that it was before the worst of the Ottoman military leadership crisis set in. So the Ottomans will not be a pushover for the control of the Middle East.

Then, Russia. Under Ivan IV and his predecessors, Russia has modernized its society and warfare quite a bit, and will be more than a match for the steppe army. Especially with gunpowder weaponry, experienced officer corps, and no shortage of potential recruits. A pure steppe army has no chance against that combination, and the post-Mongol-state armies Russia did fight in OTL ended up being organized much closer to Russia's own army - such armies have a disadvantage in that they are basically just another "normal" army, requiring high enough population to draw recruits from, reasonable manufacturing capacity, good supply lines, and access to the materials that are needed to create a XVIth-XVIIth century war machine. Most of which is not available in Mongolia, and while it IS available in China, it also makes it much harder to conquer by the Mongols in first place.

Final verdict? Tamerlane was the last gasp of the "steppe armies", and even then much of it was because he was faced with less technologically advanced areas that have already been devastated by previous invasion routes, or the areas whose military technology and doctrines were not yet completely developed. By 1500, Tamerlane's army would have had an incredibly hard time accomplishing half of what it did... by 1600, it would not have managed to do much damage at all against the contemporary forces of the time.
 
Then, Russia. Under Ivan IV and his predecessors, Russia has modernized its society and warfare quite a bit, and will be more than a match for the steppe army. Especially with gunpowder weaponry, experienced officer corps, and no shortage of potential recruits.

While I generally agree, look at Peter the Great's failures in Southern Russia, against the Crimean Khanate.

Nomadic armies could still be devastating.
 
While I generally agree, look at Peter the Great's failures in Southern Russia, against the Crimean Khanate.

Nomadic armies could still be devastating.


They can be, but I would like to point out that Peter's wars in the Crimea were quite a bit different from the earlier wars of conquest emerging from the steppes. For one, Crimean Khanate had some support from the Ottomans, had a good understanding of basics of the time's military technology, and was not grossly unprepared for an attack coming from the north. For two, consider where the war was fought. While a nomadic/steppe army could still be devastating to an unprepared force, it was no longer an unstoppable weapon of conquest. It could have fought to defend its territories, but was no longer capable of taking the war to highly-populated, developed territories of more sedentary people at even the XVIth century level of technology.
 
While I generally agree, look at Peter the Great's failures in Southern Russia, against the Crimean Khanate.

Nomadic armies could still be devastating.
Peter did not have problems FIGHTING nomad armies, he had problems supplying his force, as soon as he tried to operate far from major waterways, exposing his supply convoys to raiding. Every time Tartars tried to attack hos force proper they were smashed into pieces, even during disastrous 1st Azov.

I would say that Kalmyks were the last attempt of Plains to conquer Farmers. They ended up bouncing off different agriculture-based civilisations before becoming enforcers for one of those technologically superior regimes.
 
Peter did not have problems FIGHTING nomad armies, he had problems supplying his force, as soon as he tried to operate far from major waterways, exposing his supply convoys to raiding. Every time Tartars tried to attack hos force proper they were smashed into pieces, even during disastrous 1st Azov.
This is true, but the Mongols don't have to fight battles on Russia's terms.

A Mongol Empire in the 17th, 18th century would like remarkably like the Qing, but isn't impossible.
 
Let's assume that either the western or the eastern Mongols manage to unify their entire nation in the 15th or 16th century. This is difficult but doable as long as the leading branch can find a bone to throw to the other after subduing it. Then let's assume they manage to conquer northern China, which is not unthinkable - both branches posed serious threats to the Ming. Where do they go from there?

1) Southern China. If the Manchus could do it, I think the Mongols could too. Keep in mind that they have the north to support their conquest.

2) Manchuria. This depends on when they try it. Not impossible, but the stronger the Manchus are the more Pyrrhic the victory.

3) Korea. They'd have to take Manchuria first. My guess is Korea will offer itself as a vassal and the Mongols will be so exhausted from fighting that they'll accept. They might even collaborate against the Manchus, which would leave Korea extending beyond the Yalu.

4) Japan. Not worth the effort to either conquer or turn into a tributary state; the wokou (Japanese pirates) will be a pain in the ass, but I don't expect this to make any difference. The Japanese might take the initiative and bow their heads like the Koreans, but I wouldn't bet on it. The farthest the Mongols would go would be to conduct some anti-piracy operations and help Korea take over Tsushima.

5) The Ryukyus. Also not worth it, though for different reasons. Very likely to take the Korean route, at least as protection against Japan.

6) Northern Indochina*. Again, see Korea. Power struggles within and between them will ensure the stability of Mongol overlordship.

7) Tibet. A shared faith in the same form of Buddhism could make Tibet the most docile of tributaries. Outright conquest would be a waste of resources.

8) Central Asia. The Oyrats (western Mongols) already controlled Dzungaria (northern Sinkiang). It probably wouldn't be too much trouble to conquer and/or vassalize Kashgaria (to the south), the Kazakh steppe (to the west) and Semirechye (to the southwest). More than that would be stretching it.

9) Siberia. The Mongols would have to deal with Russian expansion just like the Manchus in OTL and they could probably secure more territory under the right circumstances. But their interest would be limited, so don't expect too much.

That's in the century following the start of their conquest of China. By this time the empire is more Chinese than Mongol, so what follows doesn't really count.

1) Sakhalin and the Kurils. No real difficulty, but unless some other power has ambitions here there's no real point either.

2) Japan. By this point the empire is more capable to mount a successful invasion. The threat alone would probably make the Japanese take the Korean route.

3) Taiwan. See Sakhalin and the Kurils. Or it could be the result of a Koxinga-like scenario.

4) The Philippines. This is a continental empire we're dealing with, so this would require at least one of 2 developments: a) a threat from Spanish-backed domestic Catholics, and b) Spain's colonial ambitions coming into conflict with the empire's assumed role of dominant power in East Asia. If they manage to control the seas when it matters then victory is assured.

5) Southern Indochina. This is really the result of their local tributaries' southward expansion.

6) Southern foothills of the Himalayas and Kashmir. Same as above, only here it's Tibetan expansionism across the mountains.

7) Transoxiana and the Fergana Valley. The Uzbeks are quite prosperous; this makes them both an attractive target and a difficult one. The empire has a great logistical disadvantage and many, maybe most of the Muslims in its Central Asian territories will root for their religious brethren. The Muslim powers to the south (Persia/Turkey and India/Afghanistan) will either join the attack and hope to grap their share, having already fought the Uzbeks plenty of times, or help their opponents out of fear of being next. The outcome depends on their reaction.

So there you have it. With a lot of luck (not outright ASB but easily at the same level with the weirdest bits of OTL history) you could get an empire that, if you count its tributaries, could stretch to include OTL Mongolia, China, Taiwan, the Philippines, all Indochina except for southern Malaya, Arunachal Pradesh, the southern foothills of the Himalayas, northeastern Kashmir, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, eastern Kazakhstan, the Altay Republic, Tuva, the Buryat territories, Outer Manchuria, Sakhalin, the Kurils, Japan, and Korea. By this point the only thing Mongol about the empire would be the origin of its ruler. European colonialism and disloyal vassals will ensure that it will quickly be cut down in size.

*By Indochina I refer to the Asian mainland south of China and east of India.
 
Top