How big could the Mongol Empire get?

[acrsome]

We are here not on the field of battle - trying to smash your opponent.

I'm not trying to win a battle at this point- I stated my intent to bow out, until you went off the rails. Now I'm just trying to point out that you are being condescending- a point which is apparently lost on you. Which is surprising since I have essentially said "You are being condescending." But if you tell me that you're not trying to be condescending, and that this is all just internet communications difficulties, then I would be inclined to believe you and let bygones be bygones and maybe just give you pointers on English phraseology and how to avoid it in the future. Because I know such things happen, especially across languages, and I have certainly gotten bitten by it before. But your repetitive snark has overcome my usual inclination to let stuff slide.

And Lord knows my Russian isn't as good as it used to be, so I can hardly be critical.

So, don't be insulting. Pleeease.

Well, then don't be insulting first. Being mildly insulting and then complaining when others are mildly insulting back is hardly adaptive. Which, again, was my point.

I never ever used such tricks like "*Yawn*, just shrill insistence" and the like.
Why do you feel free to use such words against me.

Again, I'm just following your lead to make a point.

Are you drunk? Are you high?

So... Are you claiming that this is not provocative? Seriously?!? Because frankly it smells of amateurish trolling to me. And while I can appreciate skillful trolling, amateurish trolling is just pathetic.

Look, we're both going to end up banned. I'm REALLY bowing out now unless, as I said, you tell me that what I'm interpreting as condescension was merely bad communication. In which case, my bad.

Somebody else help me out- am I being the dick, here?

 

[acrsome]

That's why I'm warning you:
- don't get drunk, don't get high - before going into this forum.

Ah! Ok, yes. все ясно- Now everything is clear.

Nice troll- you strung me along for three solid posts, there. You got kind of ham-fisted at the end, though.

спокойной ночи.

 

[Russian]

Ah! Ok, yes. все ясно- Now everything is clear.

Troll.

Nice one- you strung me along for three solid posts, there. You got kind of ham-fisted at the end, though.

спокойной ночи.

I added you into my 'ignore list'.
So, sorry, I won't be able to read (and consequently to answer) your posts.

 

[Gog (♀)]

I think you're misunderstanding several points there. Repeating the aformentioned posts would be tiresome for everyone, so I'll just make some short answers, if you don't mind.

The logistical and strategical outlook of Eastern Europe was certainly different from what existed in western regions : private/military fortifications did existed there, but in significantly less manner than the litterally thousands of stone fortifications you had once passed Elbe and Alps.
It meant that Poland and Hungary, for instance, relied much more on battlefield result for what mattered territorial control, when it played little role in, say, France or England, where up to a really late period (second half of XVth century namely), open battles tended to not lead to territorial control (but rather, to allow or disallow the pursuit of this phase of territorial control, trough siege or negociation).

Not to say that Mongols couldn't take castles, of course : they could and did. But, the general outlook of Mongol armies in Europe, contrary to China where they enlisted a good part of Chinese military resources (it's to be noted that China prior Mongol invasion wasn't *that* using a whole network of fortified points outside cities, it's something that really blossomed with Ming China), were essentially made up of steppe armies. These were adaptable (especially in the not that dry Hungary) and skillfully used strategically and tactically.They did suffered from some setbacks and delays when confronted with Balkanic network of fortifications, tough.

I don't see why it couldn't have been resolved on a tactical scale, but the relatively reduced number of Batu's forces (while really impressive and probably gathering numbers never seen before in medieval Europe), which accounted for roughly 30,000 men couldn't be scattered indefinitely while going west (meaning, going towards the most populated, most structurated, and "warned" so to speak part of Europe) and even regardless of Batu's relative lack of ambition, would have to stop : it's not just a matter of logistical dead-end, but as well of control over submitted peoples, Cumans underwent a revolt in 1241 which while not existentially threatening, point to the issues encountered by Batu.
Even if it would have possibly been considered only as temporary by Mongols, it does let the same conditions of stallment than IOTL, with the benefit (for Europeans) to be used to Mongol tactics, exactly as Poland and Hungary were in the late XIIIth century.

Does that means that Mongols couldn't have obtained a lasting influence in Europe? That's not what I think, at the contrary.
A PoD with a slightly more ambitious Batu (ambitious enough to be willing to advance his territorial grasp, instead of contenting himself with what he had as IOTL; not ambitious enough to divert ressources for Mongol leadership) would have caused significantg changes beggining in Central and Eastern Europe, but rippling around : the destructuration of the HRE is a possible consequences for what matters to me, as well a significant setback of Europe as a whole (I won't get too much into technical stuff, but let's say that an Europe that was increasingly dependent on agricultural production from Central Europe and Mediterranean basin in the XIVth is going to know some "interesting times")

But the whole strawman about "Mongols did fought in forests and did took castles, so argument is irrelevant" isn't only annoying, it's preventing any real (and may I say, civil) discussion to take place.

Okay but my point was about Eastern Europe and I didn't intend on making a strawman

 

[LSCatilina]

Okay but my point was about Eastern Europe

The part with "Moving into the HRE and Italy would have meant big things, and it's hard to say if the Europeans would be able to resist defeat, putting aside actual conquest" seemed to imply otherwise : sorry if there was a confusion.

I didn't intend on making a strawman

It was more of a general point on how the discussion seemed to goes, than something about your post particularily.

 

[Gog (♀)]

The part with "Moving into the HRE and Italy would have meant big things, and it's hard to say if the Europeans would be able to resist defeat, putting aside actual conquest" seemed to imply otherwise : sorry if there was a confusion.

I was more making an aside addressing the other comments, as I am not sure what would happen if the Mongols did actually go into those areas.

 

[LSCatilina]

I was more making an aside addressing the other comments, as I am not sure what would happen if the Mongols did actually go into those areas.

For what matter a good part of southern and eastern HRE, I could see a Mongol presence going more or less deep : I don't see why, for instance, Vienna and its region would be immune to conquest or at least indirect control if Mongols manage to takeover and hold the Hungarian plain.
That said, I could see a destabilizing policy, made of raids, plunder and battles, in the rest of HRE (especially in the North, as many people underlined, there was an open door there) to break any possible counter-attack at the new Mongol borders for the time being, possibly obtaining some "Mongol-geld" (if you allow me the expression) from the emperor or powerful princes.

That being said, we could see raids south of Alps and west of Elbe without too much trouble (altough the crushing majority of these would probably happen in Central and Eastern Europe, as it did happened in Rus' principalties post-invasion) : I don't see why Italy, western HRE or France would be immune, contrary to a full-fledged conquest.

While I'm still expecting a "strategical horizon"'s contraction in the latter years of the XIIIth century; and (as @Carp pointed), a Magyar-like seasonal raids aren't really likely to happen : in the event of the aformentioned maximalist takeover of Central and Eastern Europe (trough direct control of the Pannonian Plain, and with vassalization of the rest), it could be a real pressure for Western Europe.
What remains of HRE in Germany and Italy (tributarisation of Venice, for exemple?) from one hand, and France from the other, could simply not undergo the dynamic demographical and econonomical development it knew historically (trough the Renaissance of the XIIth century's effects are still likely to be there). Depending on the strategical result, it could mean an even greater geopolitical role for late Capetians and southern-western German dynasties, but as well a stronger sanctuarisation of Plantagenêts holdings in the Altantic (namely, Guyenne) where a good part of Baltic/North See trade hubs might be "relocated" in a first time.

 

[123456789blaaa]

@Intransigent Southerner Where did Juvaini say that the mongols didn't retreat because of Ogedei? I've been looking through his History of the World Conqueror and can't find it. I'd appreciate it if you helped me because even the translations of his work are not great reading.

A relevant point by Denis Sinor.



Basically a mix of politics, geographical issues and aformentioned logistics caused the IOTL withdrawal : having a more ambitious Batu, for exemple could have led to a situation akin to what I attempted to describe above.

Sinor seems to be saying that the mongols simply couldn`t stay in Hungary even if they wanted to due to lack of pasture. How could the mongols decide to stay if the reasons for them retreating and staying back in OTL still hold true?

 

[LSCatilina]

Sinor seems to be saying that the mongols simply couldn`t stay in Hungary even if they wanted to due to lack of pasture. How could the mongols decide to stay if the reasons for them retreating and staying back in OTL still hold true?

His point is a bit different : he pointed that it was unlikely for Mongols to remain en masse settled or militarily present in Hungary, as it would quickly overgrow the logistical capacities offered to them by the Pannonian Plain, unless they somehow stop to be a largely mounted army (which is, of course, hugely unlikely)
If you read the previous post, you'd notice that I mentioned different numbers than given by Denis Sinor for what matter Europe proper, namely around 30,000 (without counting auxiliaries as Cumans, arguably, but these already settled the region around the Carpathians at this point) : it still accounts for nearly 90,000 horses in a low estimate.

In short : Pannonian Plain with a Mongol-Cuman presence in the XIIIth century?
Plausible, especially as a secondary political-military center tied to a principal political-military center in Pontic steppe.
Pannonian Plain becoming the main center of a Mongol polity in Europe? Not as much.

It's why, hidden in plain sight in the same post ,I think we'd eventually end up with a Mongolized Cuman-Hungarian polity, with the unavoidable split of the transcontinental Danubian/Pontic/Uralian super-complex chiefdom, rather than a Mongol polity strictly speaking.
But, meanwhile, the Mongol strategy of scattered attacks in different points would alleviate the logistical burden of pasture, until the moment where Mongols would be forced to withdraw to recover a bit. Still pretty much damaging, and a tributarisation until the early XIVth century of Central and Eastern Europe is, at least to me, still plausible : Mongols don't have to be present en masse to be an effective threat for the region.

 

[Russian]

While speaking about difficulty of the Mongols operating in (Western) Europe, among the most often mentioned reasons are logistical problems with fodder/forage for the Mongol horses, lack of pastures, etc.
But this problem is a bit of overstatement, exaggeration.

Let's look at the Mongol conquest of Rus:
North-East Rus was a highly forested terrain, so pastures for the Mongol army were an obvious problem.
But the remarkable fact here is that most of the conquest was in winter meaning lots and lots of snow on the frozen ground.
As this invasion was properly documented we know that the Mongols did not have a large train of supply with them (and their movement was too fast, which proves that indirectly).

Other conquests of "unsuitable for the Mongol horses" regions are less documented, but we know for sure, that the horse armies of the Mongols operated successfully in the Caucasus, Tibet etc. which further proves the point - vital tactical dependency of the Mongols on the pastures for their horses is a gross exaggeration.
* How the Mongols did it is another issue.

One thing is true actually - once a year the Mongols have to give their horses some rest for a few months in the place with sufficient rich fodder/forage, preferably pastures.
Hence the cyclical pattern of the Mongol warfare: 8-10 months of campaigning, 2-4 months of rest.

My point here is that in ATL the conquest of Europe might proceed with the Mongol operational base being in Hungary and in the Southern Russian steppes: 8-10 months of campaigning in Europe, 2-4 months of rest in Hungary and the Western Cuman steppes.

 

[Tom Colton]

But that's natural, I suppose probably every region unconquered by the Mongols would tell you a hundred reasons why they would have fought off the Mongols if the Mongols had had invaded them.

The Sultanate of Singapore could've totally taken th-[TEMASEK IS DOUBLE-TEAMED BY THE SUKOTHAI AND MAJAPAHIT EMPIRES, CREATING A GAP IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD UNTIL THE BRITISH COME ALONG]

 

[Whiteshore]

So, can we discuss whether the Mongols could have conquered areas of Southeast Asia they invaded but didn't conquer or not?

 

[RMcD94]

With luck and will the Mongol's could have conquered anywhere they liked before the Empire fell apart.

Maybe the Americas are off limit and it might stretch luck too much for them to travel all the way to the furthest reaches of Africa just in time the Empire had left until collapse.

 

[Russian]

I guess with best of luck for some of the first Great Khaans to live longer - 15-30 years more of the Mongol World Empire without desintegration...
- that's how big the Mongol Empire(s) could get, I mean maximum extent:
* red color is ATL

 

[Whiteshore]

I guess with best of luck for some of the first Great Khaans to live longer - 15-30 years more of the Mongol World Empire without desintegration...
- that's how big the Mongol Empire(s) could get, I mean maximum extent:
* red color is ATL

View attachment 334479

Shouldn't the bits of Indochina the Mongols invaded historically (along with Japan) be Mongol as well?

 

[kasumigenx]

We could end with Java ruled by a satellite of the Mongols by marrying a javanese heiress to a scion of Genghis Khan

 

[marcinL]

While speaking about difficulty of the Mongols operating in (Western) Europe, among the most often mentioned reasons are logistical problems with fodder/forage for the Mongol horses, lack of pastures, etc.
But this problem is a bit of overstatement, exaggeration.

Let's look at the Mongol conquest of Rus:
North-East Rus was a highly forested terrain, so pastures for the Mongol army were an obvious problem.
But the remarkable fact here is that most of the conquest was in winter meaning lots and lots of snow on the frozen ground.
As this invasion was properly documented we know that the Mongols did not have a large train of supply with them (and their movement was too fast, which proves that indirectly).

Other conquests of "unsuitable for the Mongol horses" regions are less documented, but we know for sure, that the horse armies of the Mongols operated successfully in the Caucasus, Tibet etc. which further proves the point - vital tactical dependency of the Mongols on the pastures for their horses is a gross exaggeration.
* How the Mongols did it is another issue.

One thing is true actually - once a year the Mongols have to give their horses some rest for a few months in the place with sufficient rich fodder/forage, preferably pastures.
Hence the cyclical pattern of the Mongol warfare: 8-10 months of campaigning, 2-4 months of rest.

My point here is that in ATL the conquest of Europe might proceed with the Mongol operational base being in Hungary and in the Southern Russian steppes: 8-10 months of campaigning in Europe, 2-4 months of rest in Hungary and the Western Cuman steppes.

Horses could eat grain and other captured fodder, and riders could also live on the loot, as long as they are on advance. But if they got bogged down, in an already scorched land they will be in trouble - the riders will quickly start eating their own horses. On the other hand I doubt that pasture would be a problem in Hungary, I don't know where that 25 acres number comes from but it sounds very high.

 

[LSCatilina]

Horses could eat grain and other captured fodder, and riders could also live on the loot, as long as they are on advance.

Thing is : it was already the case in 1241, with Mongols pundering the shit of what they could, partially to supply themselves. Again, the point being made is as clear it's humanely possible : it's not that Mongols couldn't have looted their supplies, it's that doing so in a problematic strategical brackground (logistically-wise) wouldn't have lasted very long, especially for what matter wintering.

Does that mean that you won't have Mongols wintering in Hungary? Again, anyone who took time to read the discussion knows that nobody said this, but that only a small part of the Mongol forces could have done, so, possibly turning the Pannonian Plain into a second-order center (or a far primary-order center) under a super-complex chiefdom structure.

On the other hand I doubt that pasture would be a problem in Hungary, I don't know where that 25 acres number comes from but it sounds very high.

I can't help but think that if disagreements could be sourced, instead of vague statements, it would make an interesting discussion.
The 25 acres/year to support a horse is a relatively liberal estimation (I saw assumptions about 120 acres/year for a horse) made by Denis Sinor (one of the specialist of Central Asian history) in this short article (whom references are avaible at the bottom).

The grazing logistical limits was something acknowledged, even if relatively secondarily, by contemporary elements (such as the letter from Hulagu Khan to Louis IX).
We can (and should), of course, debate how much was needed for horse (keeping in mind that the estimation of 25 acres/year and that the ration 4 horses/1 horseman are fairly small compared to others), but without something to base disagreement on...

 

[Russian]

Horses could eat grain and other captured fodder, and riders could also live on the loot, as long as they are on advance. But if they got bogged down, in an already scorched land they will be in trouble - the riders will quickly start eating their own horses. On the other hand I doubt that pasture would be a problem in Hungary, I don't know where that 25 acres number comes from but it sounds very high.

Grain and other captured fodder were most probably used, but the Mongol horses were peculiar, they had other ways to survive if there was some shortage of looted fodder.

In the winter, Mongol horses paw up the snow to eat the grass underneath. For water, they eat snow click the link
The horses live outdoors all year at 30 °C in summer down to −40 °C in winter, and search for food on their own... digging through the snow to find forage in the winter. click the link

 

[Russian]

I read the article, mentioned above.
'The Mongols in the West' by Denis Sinor

My purpose was to find out what the author thinks about European (Hungarian) fortifications and their value against the Mongols. Denis Sinor doesn't seem to be impressed too much:

"Experience had shown that fortifications, though not effective in barring the Mongol advance (they were more often than not by-passed), at least provided a shelter for the population."​

But I found some other interesting passages by Denis Sinor:

"The invasion of Hungary is a classic example of long-range strategic planning executed with meticulous care on a unprecedented scale...
...it is beyond doubt that no ad hoc, feudal type force could have matched the well disciplined, highly trained, professional soldiers of the Mongol army.
...The (Mongol) evacuation of Hungary, another example of splendid military planning...

Nationalist German claims to the effect that, though the battle (of Liegnitz) was lost, it prevented the invasion of Germany, cannot be substantiated. The Mongol aim was the encirclement of Hungary...
West of the Danube, which was also the western limit of the Eurasian steppe, the Mongols' aim was not so much territorial conquest but, first and foremost, the capture of the fugitive king."​