Maximum extant of Mongol imperialism

It would be nice to quote or highlight the pertinent text, Russian. Walls of text are neither conducive to the discussion and imply laziness on the part of the poster. But I applaud you for finally providing a textual source -- at least that is in the right direction. ;)
good point.

I highlighted the pertinent text, Herzen's love-child.
 
good point



Well, guys, I think that we've reached the point in a discussion when it is just about time to quote some good book.

I guess I will be the first to contribute:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire
Paul D. Buell
The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Published in the United States of America
by Scarecrow Press, Inc.
A Member of the Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, Maryland 20706
POBox 317
Oxford
OX2 9RU, UK
Copyright O 2003 by Paul D. Buell
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Buell, Paul D.
Historical dictionary of the Mongol world empire / Paul D. Buell.
p. cm. - (Historical dictionaries of ancient civilizations and
historical eras ; no. 8)
ISBN 0-8108-4571-7 (Cloth : alk, paper)
1. Mongols-History-To 1500-Dictionaries, 2. Mongols-History-To
1500. I. Title. 11. Series.
DS19 .B84 2003
909'.04942O 1'03--dc2 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The
Mongol advantage was due to the ability to concentrate forces
at the critical juncture, and to mobility, not to numbers"
This one reason Russian makes a mongol conquest of Constantinople unlikely. To take Constantinople what you needed were numbers. The numbers you provide are nowhere near enough. Think about it realistically. The Ottomans at their prime under Mehmet two with their cannons and janissaries who by the way in the 1450s are more than a match for a mongol army from the 13th century that were for all intents and purposes the most disciplined army in the region, needed a minimum of 100k soldiers and 200 ships to take a city of 8000 that was split into 8villages and completely bankrupt.

Think of that for a second. What makes you believe a mongol army less than half that size with a navy not as large, any navy the mongols build in the med will get destroyed by a coalition of the navies of the various Mediterranean powers that knew the med sea far better than the mongols and had the naval experience in Mediterranean not pacific waters.
could take a city of at least 40-50 thousand people protected by what are the most impenetrable walls in the the Eurasian world and unlike the great wall of China thier is no way for the mongols to bypass them, by the way it wasn't one wall they needed to get through but three really big ass walls.

What you see will be like otl. The byzantine forces are defeated in Thrace by the mongols who go on to ravage the Balkans and Thrace up to the walls of Constantinople and then the Emperor pays them a crapton of gold and tribute and marries off one of his princesses to their leader to keep them away. Which is exactly what happened in otl when he married off euphrosyne to Nogai and payed a crapton of gold to the horde. Why in this timeline would the jochids behave differently?

As for Italy I see the richer states paying a crapton of tribute and gold to the mongols who then leave them alone like always. Germany and France on the other hand, well they lack the funds to pay tribute and most likely will get conquered and so will Spain if the Mongols make it across the Pyreenes. As for the dutch states like with the Italians they will pay a crapton of cash and tribute to keep the mongols away.

heres a link to wiki on what it took to take the city at its weakeast point by the Ottomans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople.Would have failed too had th eitalian mercenary not die.
 
Last edited:
This one reason Russian makes a mongol conquest of Constantinople unlikely.

Ok, ok, Fredrick II Barbarossa, the Jochids will not take Constantinople because its impressive fortifications, it will be only vassalized. That is my personal present to you, to show what a nice guy I am.

And the Mongols will leave alone Venetia, just vassalized as well, as it is your native city and it was pretty well defended by nature and walls.

But sorry about the rest - the rest will be looted, burned, raped, enslaved, conquered, put under heavy taxation... you know, the usual Mongol shit. :D

For those who sincerely think that European fortifications were best-of-the-best in the world I suggest some googling using the key words from my following quotes:

ISMA'ILIS. Shiite sect. The Ismii'ilis came into existence in the
8th century in a succession dispute, and existed in the 13th century
in a number of branches, principally in Khuzistan, Southern
Iraq, Syria and other. When the Mongols invaded, the NizFiris, a branch of the Isma'ilis, who used assassination as a political weapon and had established a series of nearly impregnable mountain fortresses in southeastern Iran and Afghanistan, quickly became major opponents. These fortresses were finally reduced, one by one, by Hiile'u.
I am sorry that I forgot the name of the last Ismaili castle (I'll try to find). It was on the top of the mountain, had some fields were crops were gathered and reservoirs for rain water.
That was probably the best castle in the world. The Hulaguid Mongols besieged it for sixteen(!) years and finally took it.

Some persistent fellas, aren't they?
 
Last edited:
Ok, ok, Fredrick II Barbarossa, the Jochids will not take Constantinople because its impressive fortifications, it will be only vassalized. That is my personal present to you, to show what a nice guy I am.

And the Mongols will leave alone Venetia, just vassalized as well, as it is your native city and it was pretty well defended by nature and walls.

But sorry about the rest - the rest will be looted, burned, raped, enslaved, conquered, put under heavy taxation... you know, the usual Mongol shit. :D

For those who sincerely think that European fortifications were best-of-the-best in the world I suggest some googling using the key words from my following quotes:


I am sorry that I forgot the name of the last Ismaili castle (I'll try to find). It was on the top of the mountain, had some fields were crops were gathered and reservoirs for rain water.
That was probably the best castle in the world. The Hulaguid Mongols besieged it for sixteen(!) years and finally took it.

Some persistent fellas, aren't they?
sure they are too bad thier fortification were not comparable Constantinople. Just read up its specs. No the mongols will not vassalize the romans unfortunately nor can they coross the lagoon for venice. show me your mighty mongol fleet. http://www.militaryarchitecture.com/index.php/Fortifications/the-walls-of-constantinople.html
heres just a taste of these walls. Also like I said before where is the ubermech mongol navy. don't bring the pacific campaigns up. fighting in the med was a whole different ballgame. without navy venice cant fall. It isn't built to be take by land. So no it wont be vassalized either unfortunately. I can provide other sources too. REead my sources like I have read yours instead of just continuing your argument without looking at the sources. ive looked at oyur sources and ive also read a lot of books on mongol campaings and warfare to know what type of enemies they faced.

Otherwise I agree with most of what you said
As for food, the marmara straits provide ample seafood. by the way the great cistern could hold many tons of water.

Also otl the byzantines till the end resisted being vassals of the turks.Thpoguh they were vassalized for a short period in 1390s due to the ottomans fielding an army comparable to mehmeds and holding the emperors son hostage. By the way the arabs with all their might failed twice. the avars failed. the rus failed. the huns failed. Hell every attacked aside form the crusaders hwo got ridiculously lucky almost to asb levels failed till the advent of siege canons.
 
Last edited:
again a second post but here is the cistern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_Cistern
different from reservoir of assasins. However their is one period where Constantinople can be vassalized between 1204 and 1260. Cause the Latin Empire ruled the city and they given their position by the mongol invasions would have become mongol vassals. As for Niceans cause theyre in Anatolia I Could see mongols taking them out or vassalizing them. Or better yet the nicaens pay tribute and become Mongolian vassals and take Constantinople and are given the Balkans as they swear loyalty to theie mongol overlords after marrying off one of htie rprinceses. Then the emperor dies with no son succeeding him and a mongol becomes emperor and then in the process becomes orthodox or Nestorian or remains tengri and creates a Byzantine-Mongol Khanate in the blakans and Anatolia. Over time he would be accepted by the populace as roman since the ere did not yet develop an ethnic identity at the time period. After all otl John Kantakouzenos was turkish
 
Last edited:
Ok, ok, Fredrick II Barbarossa, the Jochids will not take Constantinople because its impressive fortifications, it will be only vassalized. That is my personal present to you, to show what a nice guy I am.

And the Mongols will leave alone Venetia, just vassalized as well, as it is your native city and it was pretty well defended by nature and walls.

But sorry about the rest - the rest will be looted, burned, raped, enslaved, conquered, put under heavy taxation... you know, the usual Mongol shit. :D

For those who sincerely think that European fortifications were best-of-the-best in the world I suggest some googling using the key words from my following quotes:


I am sorry that I forgot the name of the last Ismaili castle (I'll try to find). It was on the top of the mountain, had some fields were crops were gathered and reservoirs for rain water.
That was probably the best castle in the world. The Hulaguid Mongols besieged it for sixteen(!) years and finally took it.

Some persistent fellas, aren't they?

"Nearly impregnable" is one of the most overused expressions in World history. ;)
The Isma'ili castles were generally spur castles, using their natural position as a defensive feature (sometimes the only formidable defensive feature), but were generally not as sophisticated by, say, the standards of Crusader castles in the Levant, with their multiple curtain walls, engineered kill zones that enhanced crossfire, and better protection from battering by projectiles cast from mangonels and trebochets. (I've visited the Crusader Castle, Krak des Chevaliers in Syria and several Isma'ili castle sites, including Furg castle and Alamut in Iran)

Gerdkuh castle was the one that held out for 16 years, although it was a loose siege most of that time, after a period of abortive assaults. A relatively small castle in a superb setting, protected by a ring of other castles. Generally, most Isma'ili strongholds fell after a few days to a month. Usually under terms after a knock on the door by the Mongols siege weapons.
 
Last edited:
Gerdkuh castle was the one that held out for 16 years
here is more information:
The main perimeter defences are the rings of 35 forts that surround the castle. on the eastern side there are three rings of fortifications.
the main mountain castle fortification has double wall with towers every 200 meters and so on.
I still think that was the best protected fortification of the period.
http://books.google.ru/books?id=S-s...CC8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gerdkuh castle&f=false
 
here is more information:
The main perimeter defences are the rings of 35 forts that surround the castle. on the eastern side there are three rings of fortifications.
the main mountain castle fortification has double wall with towers every 200 meters and so on.
I still think that was the best protected fortification of the period.
http://books.google.ru/books?id=S-s...CC8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gerdkuh castle&f=false

But an almost 300 meter escarpment that put the castle out of stone cast range may have been its best protection. Basically, the defenders were starved out. The survivors were disease-ridden and reduced to wearing rags. The Mongols killed them all upon their eventual surrender.
http://books.google.com/books?id=RT...CCAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gerdkuh castle&f=false
is the English language version of the same book.
 
Well what I'd have to accept :
- That Mongols never had any strategical and tactical issue in Europe. Ever.
- That Mongols really really wanted to get Europe, their number one priority, when they obviously didn't gave a real try past 1242 when in the same time invading the shit out Middle-East, or when Batu stalled the kuriltai as much as he humanly could.
- That Mongols could have put any random number of troops without any kind of logistical issue.
- That North Italy was, without any trace of doubt, their next target.

I think I can be convinced when actual arguments are made : if you want to check the previous threads on that matter, you'd see that there's several things that I changed my mind on, because good points were made.

For example, the viability of Hungary as a Mongol khanate and its influence on Eastern Europe; the cultural (while bilateral) influence of it, regular raids (as Poland knew IOTL, but ITTL, in Germany, Italy, France if following pre-christian Hungrian patterns) possibly leading to campaigns (At this point, I must stress that I never said campaigns in western Europe weren't possible : just that I didn't tought they were going to be successful as in controlling the territory).

I see we have common conclusion. So i wonder why we had such an extended arguments and some negatives.
Let me try to answer your posts.

But, again, Hungary wasn't "being conquered". It *was* conquered, just like Russia was. Still, Russia wasn't abandoned for a while, the time a new Great Khan is elected.
I never said Hungary was conquered, they were in process of being conquered. It just abandoned. Why who knows. I believe it was because of Ogodei deid and Subudei preferred to wait election of Great Khaan.

And still, Batu preferred dispatch men to the invasion of the Abassid Caliphate and overall Middle-East when he had the opportunity to put men whereever he wanted.
Berke Khan, in spite of having a royal road to Europe (and recieving tributes from European states, including the Byzantine Empire).

If it doesn't show a preferrence for other conquests, it's well imitated.
I think Russian gave proper answer to it. Batu had to participate imperial conquest and had to obey to Great Khaan.

And all of these were conquest made close to Mongol hearthland. Europe was at this moment the furthest point of Mongol expansion from it
Yes furthest and it was successful until Ogodei died. Also European conquest not conducted from Mongolian heartland but from Jochid Ulus, Lower Volga-Southern Ural-Northern Caspian Sea shore.

May I ask you sources on it? Even René Grousset (that you can't really hold as a mongol-hater) argues on no more than 30 000 including non-Mongol forces.
From Japanese documentary film (if i recall correctly it was made by NHK) 4 or 5 series film named "Mongol Empire". I think it is right. From Mongolian Secret History (which itself mentioned troop number rarely) and Chinese sources you can conclude that
Chagatai and Ogodei wanted as many troops as possible in Invasion of Russia and Europe.

1) How Mongols leaders, including Batu Khan, acted points out it wasn't that pressing as they eventually preferred put men on other objectives.
2) Campaigns in lands less fortified (Don't get me wrong, Song China did had fortifications, but on different bases, and not to the same extant than during Ming China), more productive (agriculturally), and with half a million men conquering the lot of it.
1) I never said Mongols would only pursue Europe. In my first post (this) I hypothesized that Mongols would conduct only one campaign in Europe and would continue with far smaller scale with limited goal (securing Eastern Europe and subduing Northern Italy) after Monke become Great Khaan.
2) I don't know if China had less fortified city than Europe. Fortress of Xiangyang was besieged for half-decade.

That's for the theory. It can be seen that internal strife already provoked military issues

Not automatically, but they still formed the bulk of it. As in when Guluk tried to impose himself face to Batu, being eventually scolded by Ogodei for going against the guy in charge of the invasion.
So while Jochids weren't alone there, they still seem to have been the leadership.
Why it is theory? Mongolian Secret History clearly states that Invasion of Russia and Europe was started by Chingiss Khaan and was made full Imperial campaign by Ogodei and Chagatai.

Strife wasn't due to campaign or troop composition. It was personal. Seems Guyuk (next Great Khaan) clearly frustrated by the fact that Batu headed campaign. But issue is resolved in favor of Batu by Ogodei Khaan.

A proof on why something didn't happened? While that's an interesting concept, you can't have proof on nothing, whatever Mongol defeat or Mongol victory on it. That's all came back to *our* tought, supported by more or less facts (that doesn't PROOVE anything, giving it didn't happened).
Yes agree it is all pointless. But I all facts point out that Mongols could deploy more troops if needed as during European campaign they did minor conquests in Korea and Western Iran.

Again, all estimates I ran into point out far more limited armies.
Mongolian Secret History noted that when Jamuha and Chingiss fought each had 30,0 thousand troops. And this was before Chingiss (even his own Hamug Mongol tribe was splited) incorporated Tatars, Kereits, Naiman and so on....

Twice as big doesn't mean more ressource automatically avaible (critically with all the destructions caused by the conquests), hence the reform, reorganisation ("political digestion" if you want) spree after Ogodei's death by Guluk but also by ulus' leaders.
My point is to show potential of Mongol Empire. IOTL Mongols conducted conquest till 1260s. So why ITTL suddenly they would lack any resources?

Japan at this time was too except "poor", unless you count everything lower than the economic powerhouse (as China at this time) "poor".
While Kamakura period saw the rise of a more militarized society (something that counts in war), it also made the incompetent ruling class of Heian period to be thrown away, and basing economics on a safe ground (agricultural revenues, boosted by introduction of new techniques).

By the XIIIth century, the island economics was clearly re-monetarized.

Not that the shogunate didn't had economical problems, of course, but these were mainly caused by the Mongol Invasion and the drain it represented.
My point was the economic factor was not only deciding factor for invasion. Japan wasn't worth of building such a large flotilla.

And for the "largest flotilla ever" : we're talking of reconverted fluvial junks (Where did I heard about invasion made with fluvial embarcations before...Oh.), possibly sabotaged by Koreans and Chineses. That may be not as impressive as it first sounds.
Junkies that transported 100,0 troops and supply.

Allow me to correct you : Mongols were undefeated on battlefield. When it came to other parts of warfare as sieges, they didn't were that stellar(and, again, I'll have to stress that : western medieval warfare was essentially, litterally essentially, a matter of sieges).

It's at the point europeans did saw that quite quickly, hence Bela's program of fortification in Hungary. What we have there is an adaptation to Mongol tactics, not on arbitrary ten, twelve, one hundred years after, but on the direct continuity.
You are right fortress was very valuable defense against raid (Chinese already understand it 1000 years ago and built Great Wall), but not a deciding factor when it comes to invasion.

We're talking of a country devastated by Mongol raids, that wasn't exactly the most wealthy or strong part of Europe, neither the most populated. Making a generalization from it to extand to all Europe is a bit...unconvincing.
Shouldn't they will be more capable of adapting, since they are one who fought Mongols? Or by your logic they should have been not capable of defending against Mongols in 1287 as they were devastated by in 1260?
Neither your argument that Europeans were capable of adapted to Mongols.

I'm tired trying to present points, that if possibly wrong are still basing themselves on history and should normally be answered on a same level, and to get answered by accusations of racism : that's uncalled for, that's vicious, that's retarded, and that doesn't at all proove me wrong.
Warn me when you'd be ready to discuss and grow a bit less insulting.
I'm neither expressing any racism nor the white supremacy. But you always point out that "Europeans are capable of defending or adapting" and "Europe are more fortified and difficult place".
Look Chinese also were adapting to Mongols (Mongols itself was rapidly adopting new technology and methods) as show in Battle Xiangyang.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
The problem with Europe is not that it have some walled city, its that almost all kingdom had castle/fortress/walledcity. The mongol could had conquered them all but for what ? Europe was poor, compared with china and the middle east. What will be the point of sieging the pety kingdom castel of all member of the HRE, all the trouble and the logistic problem that siege bring for a lesser loot ?

Like pompejus said, if they go for europe they will loot the richest part, certainly not Germany.

Just do what the Mongols did elsewhere and play off the different European factions against each other, help the Duke of Britanny against the King of France, or the anti-pope against the pope in return for a share of the spoils and territory. And you can always use your army to crush the Dutchy of Britanny afterwards if they cause trouble.

Then just set yourself up as the feudal overlord of western Europe, convert to Catholism etc, make yourself at the top of the existing political system. Have your base of operation in Hungarian plains and a capital in Budapest or somewhere deeper within the European heartland like Aachan, or even Rome (!!) while the rest of western Europe swears fealty to the Le Khanate.

Hell, this settlement might even end up lasting for a couple of generations. The Mongols were pretty good at integrating themselves into existing political structures and it's no different here.
 

RousseauX

Donor
What would be the farthest possible reach of the Mongol Empire at any point in history that it was around for? What would the repercussions be if they entered areas they couldn't or didn't enter in OTL?

Japan, Western Europe, at least parts of India, Egypt/North Africa, Anatolia, Balkans. If the Mongols get lucky enough you could very well have ended up with a Kahanate of Rum, Khanate of Africa etc, you would have gotten 7-8 khanates which lasts for a number of decades instead of the 4 OTL.
 
Then just set yourself up as the feudal overlord of western Europe, convert to Catholism etc, make yourself at the top of the existing political system. Have your base of operation in Hungarian plains and a capital in Budapest or somewhere deeper within the European heartland like Aachan, or even Rome (!!) while the rest of western Europe swears fealty to the Le Khanate.
While I wholeheartedly agree with most of your points I would like to disagree on some issues.

As I previously said the most obvious POD to make the Mongol conquest of Europe possible is to give Ogedei Khan the health of Winston Churchill to hold his liquor and live to the old age. Say 10 years longer than in OTL.

There are at least two scenarios after Europe is conquered by the Mongols.

Scenario #1 - Batu is undisputable head of Jochi Ulus including Europe. Actually this scenario is not that obvious as it may seem which I'll explain later. In this case I seriously doubt that capital of the Golden Horde might be in Aachan or in Rome. Look at the map of the Jochi Ulus - Europe is the extreme Western corner of this Ulus. And Mongol Europe will be much poorer and far less populated region than it was in OTL.
The capital would be wiser placed somewhere between Eastern Hungarian plains and Volga steppes. As a variant - two capitals, one in Hungary and the other on Volga; half year the Khan spends in one capital, the other half in the other, depends on which side of the ulus needs his attention more at the moment.
We must understand that steppes will be the core of the Golden Horde, its power base will be there, nomad mounted archers, backbone of the military might.

As for the Jochi Mongols becoming Catholics... Well, having more Christians in the entity makes it more probable, no doubt. But I am of the opinion that the steppe population of the Golden Horde was already inclined to Islamization and that solved the matter in OTL and would play the same decisive role in ATL.
But if the Khan decides to get Christian - why Catholicism (or to be more exact "Western Christianity"), why Rome?
As in this scenario the Balkans will be conquered and Constantinople will be freed from the "Latin occupation". So the Khan might become a Christian more inclined to the "Greek, Orthodox" Christianit rites. Well, the Khan might take a role of Constantine and unite all the Christians together, so there will be no Western, Latin or Eastern, Greek Christianity.
The Mongols could be quite persuasive, you know.

As for the Khan becoming the top of the existing system. With the political centre of the Horde being in the steppes from Hungary to Central Asia the main legitimization of the Mongol power is "Chengizz Khan gave the Jochi House these lands and that's why we own them. Point." Nothing more.
Europe being in the corner of the ulus as the source of income, loot and slaves will not be that important to care what they think about what is legitimate and what is not.
You know in OTL the conquered Russians called the Khan - "Tsar" (derived from "Caesar") though the Mongols did not give a damn what the Russians called him. But that was the highest known title the Russians knew. I guess the conquered Europeans in this ATL would call the Mongol Khan "Emperor", Kaiser, Caesar or something like that without any coronation or anything. Just out of respect and fear.

Scenario #2.
Ogedei had good relations with his nephew, Batu, who was in charge of the European invasion and the conquest (together with Subudai). But the numerous princes of other Houses including his own sons would find a way to explain to the Great Universal Khaan that Batu took too much power and influence into hands after the conquest would be over. Actually Batu will be the most powerfull man in the Empire after Oghedei himself. That must not be tolerated.
And there was a way to solve this problem. You know Chingizz Khan gave these lands to the Jochi House, that must be that way, that was the highest authority, no way to change it. But this ulus might be divided into several parts (hordes) headed by other sons of Jochi and thus more dependent on the Great Khaan Ogedei as arbiter.
Something like that happened in OTL. The eldest son of Jochi, Ordu, the elder brother of Batu, was given his Horde in the Eastern corner of the Jochi Ulus, White or Blue Horde if I remember correctly. And the linage of Hordu headed this shithole of steppe for more than a century autonomously. We do not know, that might be the initial intention of Ogedei - to divide Jochi Ulus among Jochi sons. The concentration of power was essential during the conquest, but it was dangerous for the central imperial power afterwards.
So Ordu in this ATL might be given Europe as his Horde. Why not? He was not as talented as his little brother, Batu. But he was definitely not a fool as a general and a politician. So this Horde would definitely include Hungary as the best place to settle Mongol migrants from Mongolia proper and some other loyal nomad tribes ofdifferent, mostly Turkic origin. That will be power base of the Horde. To get some chunks of the Western Cuman steppes would be fine.
It would also be advisable for the Great Khan Ogedei to put some famous and influential general from the old guard of his father, Chengizz Khan in place -to have some direct imperial influence.
Subudai would be the best choice - Ordu was the elderst son of Jochi, the eldest son of Chengizz Khan, that would be quite honorable for the old man to serve him. This best general of the era would cement the conquest and keep an eye for the Great Khan decision to divide Ulus among brothers. But later when the things settle down Subudei will be needed on other fronts of the World Mongol Empire.

So this European Horde will be what you may call Le Khanate :D
Here the Mongols would need to put themselves into the existing chain of legitimacy, becoming Catholics, crowned by the Popes, Khans styling themselves as Holy Roman Emperors, etc.
 
Last edited:
While I wholeheartedly agree with most of your points I would like to disagree on some issues.
.....

.....

I think most likely 2nd scenario.
Mongol Empire like its predecessors always new it is difficult to rule large territory compromising different entity. Xiongnu Empire was divided into 2 parts and was ruled by 2 shanuy. Gokturk Empire also was divided in 2.
If there was significant European conquest, Jochid Ulus will be most likely divided. Not only because of suspicion but simply it would be to big to rule. So IMO, Jochid ulus would be divided into 2 or 3 horde.
If there will be Khanate established in Europe it will be most likely in Hungary. And most likely will be converted to Orthodox.
 
Last edited:
I think most likely 2nd scenario.
Mongol Empire like its predecessors always new it is difficult to rule large territory compromising different entity. Xiongnu Empire was divided into 2 parts and was ruled by 2 shanuy. Gokturk Empire also was divided in 2.
If there was significant European conquest Jochid Ulus will be most likely divided, not only because suspicion but just it would be to big to rule. So IMO, Jochid ulus would be divided into 2 or 3 horde.
If there will be Khanate established in Europe it will be most likely in Hungary. And most likely will be converted to Orthodox.

That may be the case, but I can think of the one capital of the western section of the Jochi Ulus where the Mongols could establish: Belgrade, with its strategic importance.
 
Japan, Western Europe, at least parts of India, Egypt/North Africa, Anatolia, Balkans. If the Mongols get lucky enough you could very well have ended up with a Kahanate of Rum, Khanate of Africa etc, you would have gotten 7-8 khanates which lasts for a number of decades instead of the 4 OTL.
Well, as for me, I don't know.

You see if you ask me if the conquest of Europe was possible I will answer that if Ogedei Khan lives 10 years longer that is pretty much inevitable.

If you ask me whether Egypt could be conquered by Hulagu, hell, of course, piece of cake - give Möngke Khan one more year to live.

But if you ask me if the Mongols could conquer Europe AND Egypt, my answer will be: "I don't know, I am not sure, probably not".

My point here is that we might predict with some degree of certainity what happens after the POD for a period of 10-15 years or so. But we cannot change the nature of the Mongol Empire, the process of disintegration started by Chengizz Khan himself.

I mean OTL was pretty much close to the best possible scenario.
What the hell, sometimes I think that OTL for the Mongols was even better than best case scenario! :D
See yourself, Chengizzid family trait was alcoholism, that was their main course of death. And in this family we have Kublai Khan who lived up to the age of almost 80! That is just not in the realm of the possible!
I mean if you ask me I am telling you, Mongol conquest of the Song China after the fall of the Mongol World Empire was just impossible.

Speaking of Khanate of Africa, which I guess is North Africa without Egypt.
I mean theoretically that was possible if Mongke Khan lives 10 years longer than in OTL. Then Hulagu might go on from Egypt to the West. Dessert had not been a problem for the Arab invasion, for the Mongols that was familiar terrain as well. But you see almost everywhere in Eurasia there was substantial Turkic nomad population which was quickly incorporated into the Mongol army. The Turks and the Mongols were closely related linguistically and belonged to the similar steppe culture.
While conquering China the Mongols were already the part of the Chinese imperial tradition as majority of other border nomads. Some of them already spoke perfect Chinese, understood Chinese way and so they found good support from the local Chinese warlords.
In the North Africa there will be no Turkic tribes; the Berbers (Arabo-Berbers) had different mentality. Long distance from the centre of Il-Khanate which was somewhere to the East of Baghdad. And that at this moment the imperial forces were overstrained with conquest of China, which did not make any further migration of the Mongols possible. There were territories with loose control by Hulagu like Anatolian Turks or no control like Arabia which needed more attention than faraway North Africa.
That all put together.
Well I might think of only a few Mongol raids to the North Africa for booty and slaves, no permanent occupation. Maybe some temporary vassalization of some North African entities.
 
I mean OTL was pretty much close to the best possible scenario.
What the hell, sometimes I think that OTL for the Mongols was even better than best case scenario! :D
See yourself, Chengizzid family trait was alcoholism, that was their main course of death. And in this family we have Kublai Khan who lived up to the age of almost 80! That is just not in the realm of the possible!
I mean if you ask me I am telling you, Mongol conquest of the Song China after the fall of the Mongol World Empire was just impossible.
.

Basically, this.
Old Kublai probably went to AA meetings...;)

Temporary vasseldom of more real estate is conceivable through Mongol imperialism but key word I think is temporary.

Besides, space-filling empires are so boring. Especially to cartographers. :D
Its a good thing they typically have a short shelf life and give birth to all sorts of new polities in their death thrones...
 
Top