Mongol Empire Survives

After reading a book on Genghis Khan and his Empire, I have developed a sense of hero worship, as well as realized that the Mongolians were much more intelligent than the barbarians they have been made out to be. One of their greatest talents, behind empire conquering, was empire maintaining. They introduced paper money, and created incredible world spanning trade routes that increased the wealth of all the areas under their control. They also respected the cultures in their empires, allowing them to control large populations. Even after the empire broke up into several administrative districts, cultural exchange and trade remained unhindered between them because they knew the importance of keeping the money rolling. The reason for the collapse of their empire is easy; the plague. Their well maintained trade routes made the plague easily traverse the entire planet. Once the plague came, their trade routes collapsed, and they couldn't keep their subjects happy without the money that the trade brought. Furthermore, isolated due to the lack of the trade routes, they became paranoid, rejecting the cultures that they conquered and became very obviously Mongolian, alienating their subjects(at least in China). So, the POD is obvious. No plague. Even if their empire doesn't survive perfectly, it still won't be completely destroyed as it was IOTL.


As you can see below, the Mongolian Empire was the biggest empire ever. Even though it was not a homogeneous political entity, it was a untied cultural and economic entity. If the plague does not come, will it be able to expand any more?

800px-Mongol_Empire_History.jpg
 
If it were to survive I could see it growing somewhat larger, but it'd be limited.

It'd likely expand into and conquer Siberia and some parts of Northern Russia, though a line going from the Southern tip of Nova-Zemlya would likely be its border their. It could probably expand down to the Modern Egyptian border more less. In Asia it could likely expand into parts of Indo-China and the northern part of the Sub-continent, though I think they may just make most of India a puppet.
 
I doubt they would survive to modern day. Any ancient or medieval empire lasting to modern day is pretty ASB.
 
I doubt they would survive to modern day. Any ancient or medieval empire lasting to modern day is pretty ASB.

Well, not really, Japan and Britain, both countries that existed at the time of the Mongols exist today without having changed to terribly much over time, I mean yeah they both had and for the most part lost their colonial empires, but the integral states are still a single polity.

Beyond that the Mongolian Empire was itself a type of early Federalism and had some proto-democracy incorporated, so it was one of the few great empires that actually could survive, though of course it would reform over time, just as any country does.
 
Well, not really, Japan and Britain, both countries that existed at the time of the Mongols exist today without having changed to terribly much over time, I mean yeah they both had and for the most part lost their colonial empires, but the integral states are still a single polity.

Beyond that the Mongolian Empire was itself a type of early Federalism and had some proto-democracy incorporated, so it was one of the few great empires that actually could survive, though of course it would reform over time, just as any country does.

History has shown that empires typically go into decline for one reason or another. Perhaps the Mongol Empire survives a few hundred more years, and breaks apart with more influence on it's successor states in terms of culture and governmental systems. Or something.
 
After reading a book on Genghis Khan and his Empire, I have developed a sense of hero worship, as well as realized that the Mongolians were much more intelligent than the barbarians they have been made out to be. One of their greatest talents, behind empire conquering, was empire maintaining. They introduced paper money, and created incredible world spanning trade routes that increased the wealth of all the areas under their control. They also respected the cultures in their empires, allowing them to control large populations. Even after the empire broke up into several administrative districts, cultural exchange and trade remained unhindered between them because they knew the importance of keeping the money rolling. The reason for the collapse of their empire is easy; the plague.
The Mongol's main success in Empire building was that they often didn't keep to heavy a hand on the tiller. They'd pass through, conquer, and then return infrequently for tribute. It's hard to see how they could remain a functioning cohesive empire for much longer than they did though, it was an Imperial Kingship, with no formalised rite of succession, which is way it broke apart in to separate empires almost immediately, Genghis dies and the empire is carved up amongst his Sons and Relatives.
 
Well, not really, Japan and Britain, both countries that existed at the time of the Mongols exist today without having changed to terribly much over time, I mean yeah they both had and for the most part lost their colonial empires, but the integral states are still a single polity.
Mongolia also exists today without having changed terribly much over time. It is where the Mongols have lived for at least 1000 years. :rolleyes: This does not help your argument. Britain used to control a huge amount of territory outside of its homeland, and ditto for Japan. But both of those empires did not last either. The Japanese Empire actually hurts your argument, because like the Mongol Empire it was built quickly via conquest and collapsed rapidly.

The Mongols built their empire via conquest and the co-opting of local rulers. It was not really built to last and was never really integrated as an actual empire. The fact that so quickly the Ilkhanate, various hordes on the Ukrainian steppe, and the other khanates formed just illustrates the unstable nature.
 
The Mongol's main success in Empire building was that they often didn't keep to heavy a hand on the tiller. They'd pass through, conquer, and then return infrequently for tribute. It's hard to see how they could remain a functioning cohesive empire for much longer than they did though, it was an Imperial Kingship, with no formalised rite of succession, which is way it broke apart in to separate empires almost immediately, Genghis dies and the empire is carved up amongst his Sons and Relatives.


I think that is definably possible, however, that would still mean that the successor states would survive. The black plague wiped out all Mongolian influences, and while I doubt the one empire would survive, it could still live on as lesser states which would still trade and exchange culture as per OTL. And lesser is a relative term--this could be a China wank. IOTL, when the Ming took over, they tossed out a bunch of the Mongolian economic policies; if this isn't done, and no plague and more population, China could be powerful enough to actually colonize the new world when it is discovered. Furthermore, it's not crazy to think that they would expand North, into Siberia, although there is little incentive to go there due to the weather!
 
After reading a book on Genghis Khan and his Empire, I have developed a sense of hero worship, as well as realized that the Mongolians were much more intelligent than the barbarians they have been made out to be. One of their greatest talents, behind empire conquering, was empire maintaining. They introduced paper money, and created incredible world spanning trade routes that increased the wealth of all the areas under their control. They also respected the cultures in their empires, allowing them to control large populations. Even after the empire broke up into several administrative districts, cultural exchange and trade remained unhindered between them because they knew the importance of keeping the money rolling.

Ah, but this sort of thing depends on the book you read. I've read Genghis Khan had a habit of slaughtering the entire civilian population of cities he conquered, that he utterly destroyed Samarkand, Bukhara, and Nishapur-cities that were the greatest cultural and scientific centers of the era, and among the largest cities in the world at the time. That his son, Hulegu Khan, threw the books of the Baghdad library-one of the largest libraries in the world-into the Tigris river, a loss comparable to the destruction of the Library of Alexandria centuries earlier. That the same Hulegu filled up the irrigation canals of Iraq with dirt, turning that country into the desert it is today. That he once came up with the idea of wiping out the entire Chinese population to create pastureland for Mongol nomads, and was only dissuaded from this when an advisor pointed out he could make a lot of money by taxing them. Genghis Khan and his family were responsible for the deaths of millions of people and the destruction of an incomparable amount of human knowledge-you really don't see any equivalents until Stalin and Hitler in the 20th century.


The reason for the collapse of their empire is easy; the plague. Their well maintained trade routes made the plague easily traverse the entire planet. Once the plague came, their trade routes collapsed, and they couldn't keep their subjects happy without the money that the trade brought. Furthermore, isolated due to the lack of the trade routes, they became paranoid, rejecting the cultures that they conquered and became very obviously Mongolian, alienating their subjects(at least in China). So, the POD is obvious. No plague. Even if their empire doesn't survive perfectly, it still won't be completely destroyed as it was IOTL.

No, the reason it collapsed was because Ghenghis Khan divided it among his children, who began fighting each other shortly after he died. Eventually, their descendents became absorbed into the local culture and adopted the religions of the places they ruled (Islam in Persia and Central Asia, Buddhism in China), before they all eventually fell within a few centuries of his death.
 
After reading a book on Genghis Khan and his Empire, I have developed a sense of hero worship, as well as realized that the Mongolians were much more intelligent than the barbarians they have been made out to be. One of their greatest talents, behind empire conquering, was empire maintaining. They introduced paper money, and created incredible world spanning trade routes that increased the wealth of all the areas under their control. They also respected the cultures in their empires, allowing them to control large populations. Even after the empire broke up into several administrative districts, cultural exchange and trade remained unhindered between them because they knew the importance of keeping the money rolling. The reason for the collapse of their empire is easy; the plague. Their well maintained trade routes made the plague easily traverse the entire planet. Once the plague came, their trade routes collapsed, and they couldn't keep their subjects happy without the money that the trade brought. Furthermore, isolated due to the lack of the trade routes, they became paranoid, rejecting the cultures that they conquered and became very obviously Mongolian, alienating their subjects(at least in China). So, the POD is obvious. No plague. Even if their empire doesn't survive perfectly, it still won't be completely destroyed as it was IOTL.


As you can see below, the Mongolian Empire was the biggest empire ever. Even though it was not a homogeneous political entity, it was a untied cultural and economic entity. If the plague does not come, will it be able to expand any more?

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

While I'm a fan of Genghis-Han as any other person, the mongols utterly destroyed the Central Asian and Middle East islamic civilizations, put an end to one of the most civilized societies this world has ever seen (the Chinese Song Dynasty) not to mention disrupting the russian, hungarian, bulgarian and polish states. They were not traders, nor did Genghis-Han have some grand masterplan for enforcing his power through money. They simply controlled the populations through organized violence. In China they forbade the locals to carry weapons, they often massacrated and destroyed entire cities for a simple rebellion...

I don't like to talk about a Mongol empire that spans all possesions of Genghis' descendents. It was more of a family affair, with the usual backstabbing, war and fratricide: Ceaghatai's sons, for example, battled against Hulagu, even Kubilai took the throne after a civil war. And the best example is provided by Marco Polo. The Venetians take the future wife of the Persian king on a boat towards Persia, instead of the land route. Even though on the map the possesions of Kubilai and Abaka seem to be in order, the reality was far from idyllic: seasoned traders and imperial messengers were the only civil persons that had the guts to go from one side of the empire to the other.

Their collapse actually predates the plague. Chagatai's Central Asia becomes at the beginning of the 14 century a battleground for feudal lords (Timur-Lenk will be one of them). Hulagu's persian realm is divided after 1335. In China weak emperors rule after 1307. The only capable mongolian realms remains the Golden Horde which, ironically, is the starting European point of the plague.
 
I don't know... the Mongols were relatively despotic. So were the Turks, and we saw what happened to the Ottoman Empire. I imagine the Russians would hammer away until there was nothing left of it. Not to mention, China would assimilate the Mongols within the boundaries of the Middle Kingdom. Perhaps it could exist in the form of a much larger China in that case.
 
After reading a book on Genghis Khan and his Empire, I have developed a sense of hero worship, as well as realized that the Mongolians were much more intelligent than the barbarians they have been made out to be. One of their greatest talents, behind empire conquering, was empire maintaining.

Just a small point, but if I recall the details of my book on Kublai Khan correctly (been a couple of years since I read it) while the Khans did have a very admirable tendency to appoint visionaries to control certain things (i.e. your paper money comment, etc) those visionaries tended to get caught up rapidly in faction intrigue, and IIRC more than one man hired to be an impartial advisor ended up being executed or assassinated (can't remember which) because a jealous Mongol at court resented his popularity. This kind of thing, again if I recall, prevented a number of otherwise very important reforms from actually having any success - rather like the way conservative-minded court nobles in Europe would shoot down any working class intelligentsia unfortunate enough to be brought into the court by the monarch or his own favourites because of their low birth and insistence on change.
 
Ah, but this sort of thing depends on the book you read. I've read Genghis Khan had a habit of slaughtering the entire civilian population of cities he conquered, that he utterly destroyed Samarkand, Bukhara, and Nishapur-cities that were the greatest cultural and scientific centers of the era, and among the largest cities in the world at the time. That his son, Hulegu Khan, threw the books of the Baghdad library-one of the largest libraries in the world-into the Tigris river, a loss comparable to the destruction of the Library of Alexandria centuries earlier. That the same Hulegu filled up the irrigation canals of Iraq with dirt, turning that country into the desert it is today. That he once came up with the idea of wiping out the entire Chinese population to create pastureland for Mongol nomads, and was only dissuaded from this when an advisor pointed out he could make a lot of money by taxing them. Genghis Khan and his family were responsible for the deaths of millions of people and the destruction of an incomparable amount of human knowledge-you really don't see any equivalents until Stalin and Hitler in the 20th century.




No, the reason it collapsed was because Ghenghis Khan divided it among his children, who began fighting each other shortly after he died. Eventually, their descendents became absorbed into the local culture and adopted the religions of the places they ruled (Islam in Persia and Central Asia, Buddhism in China), before they all eventually fell within a few centuries of his death.






Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

While I'm a fan of Genghis-Han as any other person, the mongols utterly destroyed the Central Asian and Middle East islamic civilizations, put an end to one of the most civilized societies this world has ever seen (the Chinese Song Dynasty) not to mention disrupting the russian, hungarian, bulgarian and polish states. They were not traders, nor did Genghis-Han have some grand masterplan for enforcing his power through money. They simply controlled the populations through organized violence. In China they forbade the locals to carry weapons, they often massacrated and destroyed entire cities for a simple rebellion...

I don't like to talk about a Mongol empire that spans all possesions of Genghis' descendents. It was more of a family affair, with the usual backstabbing, war and fratricide: Ceaghatai's sons, for example, battled against Hulagu, even Kubilai took the throne after a civil war. And the best example is provided by Marco Polo. The Venetians take the future wife of the Persian king on a boat towards Persia, instead of the land route. Even though on the map the possesions of Kubilai and Abaka seem to be in order, the reality was far from idyllic: seasoned traders and imperial messengers were the only civil persons that had the guts to go from one side of the empire to the other.

Their collapse actually predates the plague. Chagatai's Central Asia becomes at the beginning of the 14 century a battleground for feudal lords (Timur-Lenk will be one of them). Hulagu's persian realm is divided after 1335. In China weak emperors rule after 1307. The only capable mongolian realms remains the Golden Horde which, ironically, is the starting European point of the plague.

You raise valid points but I repeat: The Empire fractured into many political entities, which warred with each other, but still allowed trade and cultural exchange to go between their fiefdoms because it's mutually benefical. I'd even go so far as to say that it was needed to keep them in power, because it made their subjects more content. If there is no plague, I am sure that this warring, after time, will cause this relationship to collapse, I think that some administrative aspects of the empire could survive, perhaps of the the small empires(Golden Horde, Yuan Dynasty) and administrative measures and laws. The plague wiped out many aspects of the empire. Also, I don't think that the Mongols did have a master plan with their trade; I think it just worked out that way. Finally, I do think they were violent, and never intended to judge them morally. How can you judge anything in history when all nations are formed over the dead bodies of other ones?
 
I would like to point out that none of the atrocities the Mongols committed were unusual for their time. It's just that it took place across an area that stretched across most of Eurasia. Hell, just look at the OP in the map.
 
You raise valid points but I repeat: The Empire fractured into many political entities, which warred with each other, but still allowed trade and cultural exchange to go between their fiefdoms because it's mutually benefical. I'd even go so far as to say that it was needed to keep them in power, because it made their subjects more content. If there is no plague, I am sure that this warring, after time, will cause this relationship to collapse, I think that some administrative aspects of the empire could survive, perhaps of the the small empires(Golden Horde, Yuan Dynasty) and administrative measures and laws. The plague wiped out many aspects of the empire. Also, I don't think that the Mongols did have a master plan with their trade; I think it just worked out that way. Finally, I do think they were violent, and never intended to judge them morally. How can you judge anything in history when all nations are formed over the dead bodies of other ones?

I don't judge them from a moral point of view. I like the mongols and I'm a fan of their work. But trade and cultural exchange were better left to the islamic civilization, that did just that for 500 years before. The abbasids, the samanids, the ghaznavids, the selguk turks managed to exchange cultural and scientific technology way more efficient and natural than mongols, who were in most part ignorant warlords. We have exceptions, of course, a Kubilai (that had to adapt to the Chinese world and leave the steppes behind) or a Mahmud Ghazan (that accepts Islam). But they are just that, exceptions.

As the last part of the 13th century showed (long before the plague), the only way for the mongols to resist on their thrones was to adapt to their new home. Hulagu's descendents embraced Islam, Kubilai became the heir of the Chinese tradition etc... You cannot govern an empire from the horseback, but you also cannot maintain mongolian traditions by living in a city, having a palace and employing rituals or complicated ceremonies.

I would like to point out that none of the atrocities the Mongols committed were unusual for their time. It's just that it took place across an area that stretched across most of Eurasia. Hell, just look at the OP in the map.

They were unusual. They were effective as a military tool but they were a true novelty in Middle East and Central Asia. I think that only Assyrians and Romans had the possibility of proving that the mongolian way works in the past.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If it were to survive I could see it growing somewhat larger, but it'd be limited.

It'd likely expand into and conquer Siberia and some parts of Northern Russia, though a line going from the Southern tip of Nova-Zemlya would likely be its border their. It could probably expand down to the Modern Egyptian border more less. In Asia it could likely expand into parts of Indo-China and the northern part of the Sub-continent, though I think they may just make most of India a puppet.
Why Siberia, there's nothing there.
 
Top