Could a different tribe of equestrians lead a Temujinesque conquest?

asia.png


If the Mongols are disunited, could a unification of tribal confederacies be led by chiefs from a different ethnic group, which in turn would lead to an alternate invasion of China, Persia and Europe? I thought I saw something like this discussed in the discussion thread for Chaos TL, but I may be mistaken.

Looking around (I confess, at Wikipedia) I got the impression that a sufficient diplomatic disaster in the 1120s could derail the Song-Jurchen alliance against the Liao Dynasty, and perhaps, with the right leadership, enough factors pushing against further, um, 'sedentarisation', and a morphic-twin-Temujin we could see an unlikely Khitan Conquest.

Further back, there are the Göktürk and Uyghur empires...
 
Yes. My personal preference is that Steppe Tribe invasions are basically a fractal sort of dealie: they split up and merge and conquer each other in ways that are invariant whether you're dealing with families, clans, tribes, or empires; and their inroads into their neighbors scale the same way. Ghenghis was riding one hell of a whirlwind, but (by obvious example) it's within the statistical range of these things, and so it could be done by others.

...Which is not quite the answer you were expecting, I'll bet. ;)
 

Susano

Banned
...Which is not quite the answer you were expecting, I'll bet. ;)
It hits the nail of the head, though. Well, kinda, your mathematical analogy was unnecessary :p But yes, the history of the steppes is a really confusing MESS of peoples rising and falling, half of whom we dont know enough about in terms of culture and relationship to others/where they came from. And not just Mongolia, the entire Steppe Belt. "Ah, the Skyths... no, wait, the Sarmatians... what are Sagetes? ... oh, its the Goths now... no, wait, Huns... or Pechenegs... argh!" ;)

And, as part of this ebb and flow of peoples, nomadic invasions of China and Europe were also quite regular, though in Europe they usually did not reach (with the exception of raids, but not in term of permanent presence) beyond the Pannonian Plain and Wallachia, and most of the time not further then whats South Ukraine these days. In China those were usually more widespread and extensive, though...
 
And, as part of this ebb and flow of peoples, nomadic invasions of China and Europe were also quite regular, though in Europe they usually did not reach (with the exception of raids, but not in term of permanent presence) beyond the Pannonian Plain and Wallachia, and most of the time not further then whats South Ukraine these days. In China those were usually more widespread and extensive, though...

And India. Everybody forgets India. :(
 
Yes. My personal preference is that Steppe Tribe invasions are basically a fractal sort of dealie: they split up and merge and conquer each other in ways that are invariant whether you're dealing with families, clans, tribes, or empires; and their inroads into their neighbors scale the same way. Ghenghis was riding one hell of a whirlwind, but (by obvious example) it's within the statistical range of these things, and so it could be done by others.

...Which is not quite the answer you were expecting, I'll bet. ;)

That makes sense, like Susano said the situation is messy and there aren't radical differences between the polities in question.

Not unexpected either, though I wondered about various regions of the steppe and where powers in different areas would be likely to direct their attacks, though probably a system more stormy with volatility and opportunism would be more likely like you suggest I think. I thought it might influence things if certain areas were better for grazing or more populous, but then of course the tribes move about a lot anyway.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I vote for the Jin dynasty. They had the best of both worlds. The army of horse archers and the wealth of China.

I agree. I think the Jurchen could've pulled something like this off. They were pretty badass, and definitely one of the stronger/more organized tribes in the history of the steppes.
 
Eh. The Aryans, and the Moghuls. And the Moghuls dont really count. And besides that? I think the Steppe peoples would rather target Persia than India...

Well Timur did sack Delhi.

There's plenty of stuff in India to attract steppe nomads-the vast wealth of the subcontinent would be ripe for looting. It's just that it's not particularly good horse country, for the most part.
 
Well Timur did sack Delhi.

There's plenty of stuff in India to attract steppe nomads-the vast wealth of the subcontinent would be ripe for looting. It's just that it's not particularly good horse country, for the most part.

And between the Ayrans and Munghals there were also the Persians, Greeks [OK not steppe nomads;)], Alans, Arabs, various other Turks, Afghans and no doubt a few I haven't thought of. Not for nothing was something like 80% of the Indian army for much of the Raj based on the NW frontier.

I think the lack of good horse country possibly made it worse in a way. It limited the range that steppe invaders often covered, although many got a long way. However it also meant that the locals, or earlier conquerors had more trouble keeping new invaders out.:(

Steve
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Well Timur did sack Delhi.

There's plenty of stuff in India to attract steppe nomads-the vast wealth of the subcontinent would be ripe for looting. It's just that it's not particularly good horse country, for the most part.

Another issue is geography. Persia lies right at the end of nomadic routes. Perfectly close enough. For a nomadic tribe to invade India, it usually had to control Persia.
 
Top