DYNAMIC EAST ASIA

Timur didn't dominate Kazakhstan Land. Timur base was what current Uzbekstan, Turkmenstan, Tajiktan, Afghanistan and coastal region of Caspian sea.
Historically tribes on Kazakhstan plain was dominated by power from Mongolian Plain. Xiongnu, Gokturk, Uyghur Empire, Mongolian Empire, Zungarian Empire all originated from current MOngolian territory and controlled Kazakhstan Plain. If Qing hadn't stopped Zunngar, they sure would have united Mongolia, Kazakhstan for sure in 17th century.
Again why it was possible is Mongolian and Kazakhstan Plain was power vacuum. No other outside powers (except Manchu) could occupy that land, because of hostile weather and geography.

Okay I just realized we where talking past eachother, I wasn't talking about Kazakhstan, I was talking about the areas south of Kazakhstan.
 
South Kazakhstan is intersection point. So it will fell under Strongest power. So When Mongol and Kazakhstan nomads strong it will fell under them. When those Southern sedentary countries strong it will fell under them.
 
South Kazakhstan is intersection point. So it will fell under Strongest power. So When Mongol and Kazakhstan nomads strong it will fell under them. When those Southern sedentary countries strong it will fell under them.

So, aparently we pretty much agreed on everything all along. Also I just realized I was looking at the map wrong, I had thought those southern groups where part of Mongolia.

Although I am still suspicious of Mongolia's ability in a balance of power, compared to its neighbors its very sparsely populated and its government system is much weaker than its neighbors (Vassalic systems tend to not hold together long term).
 
So, aparently we pretty much agreed on everything all along. Also I just realized I was looking at the map wrong, I had thought those southern groups where part of Mongolia.

Although I am still suspicious of Mongolia's ability in a balance of power, compared to its neighbors its very sparsely populated and its government system is much weaker than its neighbors (Vassalic systems tend to not hold together long term).

Yes, I'm glad we understand each other. :)
Agree that Mongolia was demographically and economically very weak. However their military was disproportionally strong. After fall of Yuan Dynasty, Esen taishi of Oirat Mongal alone could win Ming troops (during its zenith) and catch its Emperor. Zungarians (they are just 1/4th of Mongolia) was very strong and made havoc on Central Asia and even Qing was very cautous. It was late 18 and early 19 century when fire arm was major part of weapon made Mongolian cavalry more tamed. Even then Mongolian troops was very mobile. Since there was no cities or fixed population centers, defeating Mongolian was very hard, you can't hit them badly. Huge hostile land and sparse population worked well for them.
 
But being hard to defeat on home turf (or similar) doesn't necessarily translate into being able to be a significant factor in the balance of power.
 
Yes, but can't be left Power vacuum. If they remained alone then someone will consolidate power as did many time in history. And again it will rise and get strong, its historical-cycle. So I'm now exploring the way to build TL. Not easy, but seems possible. My bet is China being divided (which is very hard), and no one is interest of colonizing Mongolian land (as OTL) and pray Russian more interested in Europe than Siberia (as OTL). Then you well will have Mongolian empire intact around 1800 +,-.
 
Yes, but can't be left Power vacuum. If they remained alone then someone will consolidate power as did many time in history. And again it will rise and get strong, its historical-cycle. So I'm now exploring the way to build TL. Not easy, but seems possible. My bet is China being divided (which is very hard), and no one is interest of colonizing Mongolian land (as OTL) and pray Russian more interested in Europe than Siberia (as OTL). Then you well will have Mongolian empire intact around 1800 +,-.

There's still the internal problems and other steppe groups.
 
There's still the internal problems and other steppe groups.

Yes, but everybody has internal problems. Mongolian internal problem is neither small nor big than other countries.
There is no step groups other than Turkic or Mongolian tribes. It doesn't matter who dominates, as long as they unite Kazakh-Mongolian steppe.

Only other group semi-nomads who can extend influence is Manchus. They can fight in harsh condition.
 
Yes, but everybody has internal problems. Mongolian internal problem is neither small nor big than other countries.
There is no step groups other than Turkic or Mongolian tribes. It doesn't matter who dominates, as long as they unite Kazakh-Mongolian steppe.

Only other group semi-nomads who can extend influence is Manchus. They can fight in harsh condition.

I don't know if that's true. There's a reason the Mongolian Empire didn't last and for example France has lasted.

As for steppe groups - "Turkic or Mongolian tribes" covers many groups within that.

Not necessarily different ethnicities, but that's not the problem. Those on top may not stay well lead, those on bottom may seek to become on top.
 
I don't know if that's true. There's a reason the Mongolian Empire didn't last and for example France has lasted.

As for steppe groups - "Turkic or Mongolian tribes" covers many groups within that.

Not necessarily different ethnicities, but that's not the problem. Those on top may not stay well lead, those on bottom may seek to become on top.

Actually Mongolia exists as an Independent country (I live in Mongolia ;)).
It was Manchus who incorporated Mongolian into China proper and when Qing Dynasty fell outer Mongolia got Independent when they pushed to liberate Greater Mongolia Russia pushed them (they wanted to get some benefit from China).
 
Actually Mongolia exists as an Independent country (I live in Mongolia ;)).
It was Manchus who incorporated Mongolian into China proper and when Qing Dynasty fell outer Mongolia got Independent when they pushed to liberate Greater Mongolia Russia pushed them (they wanted to get some benefit from China).

"Exists as an independent country" =/= the Mongolian Empire continues to exist. Modern Mongolia is considerably smaller than the steppe empire was at its height.

Just like we still have the United Kingdom of Great Britain but not the British Empire.
 
"Exists as an independent country" =/= the Mongolian Empire continues to exist. Modern Mongolia is considerably smaller than the steppe empire was at its height.

Just like we still have the United Kingdom of Great Britain but not the British Empire.

Sadly true, we got in worst scenario... :mad::mad:
 
Yeah, so a country is generally considered to be conquered after it surrenders. Any other definition would be pointless. After all, you can say that Song China wasn't really conquered: the imperial government surrendered in 1276 before the last remnants were defeated in 1279. Or, for a more modern example, France in 1940 wasn't conquered by Germany either: the civilian government of Petain was the entity which sought the armistice. Same for Japan in 1945: it was a civilian, the Emperor, who overruled a military that wanted to continue fighting.

True, but all of these examples, except for the last one, involved both sides undergoing military conflict, and one side managed to gradually overrun and retain most of the conquered territory until they were decisively pushed out years or decades later. Both the Mongols and the Nazis continued to push into foreign territory and continued to occupy the vast majority of it until they were forced to retreat altogether in 1368 and 1944, respectively. On the other hand, although the Home Islands were never invaded by either the United States or the Soviet Union, the former continued to actively occupy major cities for seven years until a treaty was finally implemented.

In comparison, the Mongols withdrew their troops from Korea after each campaign, although some garrisons were retained in the north and on Jeju Island for decades. However, the capital and most of the peninsula were never occupied by the invaders after 1273, although Mongol diplomats continued to influence politics within Goryeo. The fact that both Yuan and Goryeo rulers took spouses from the other state for decades also suggests that the relationship between the two were set apart from other ones.

I really won't speak about Georgian history, but my point is that Koryo wasn't exceptional in retaining its existence despite surrendering. The Rus states were already splintered even before the Mongols came (I think there was a nominal unity under one of the rulers, but functionally they were separate), and even after the Mongols invaded, they still continued to exist.

See above regarding Georgia. The point about the Rus suggests that although each polity was relatively consolidated, and had close ties with each other, there was no single ruler who dominated the others. This essentially suggests that a relatively centralized state technically did not last both shortly before and after the invasions by the Mongols.

Also, even though Vietnam and Champa paid tribute to the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, they were essentially independent, unlike Koryo, whose rulers could be deposed at will by the Yuan Emperors. I don't even think the Mongols even reached Champa. Like Novgorod and some of the Rus states, it paid tribute as an insurance measure against war, not because it had to.

Yes, but the two situations are different, as Goryeo continued to resist until the last remnants were finally defeated in 1273, while both Vietnam and Champa decided to send tribute and nominally surrender even though the former had scored three victories. Goryeo didn't have a choice when it finally surrendered, while Vietnam and/or Champa could have theoretically continued to maintain an aggressive stance even after the third invasion, although they eventually chose peace for practical reasons.
 
Top