Mongolian Empire Question

How long could the Mongolian Empire (as a single state) have lasted, and how, and what is the largest it could have become realistically?
 

Delvestius

Banned
No one really knows.... Theoretically they could have made all of Europe a tribute state. Throw in a successful Japanese invasion and MAYBE India. The answer: Pretty damn big.

As for a single state? Not for very much longer than it did. It was simply too vast of an Empire, and the communication and transportation technology to support such a state wasn't available.
 
Indeed, perhaps if only one of Ghenghis's MANY children had survived, otherwise not long after his death as in OTL.
 
IfMongke Khan dies say in 1289 ( his brother Kublai Khan died when he was 79) instead of dying in 1259 during the siege of Hezhou, Mongols can actually conquer most of Eurasia. If he lives:


a) 1. Campaign in Sun China continues but there no civil war in Mongol Empire( Mongke unlike his brothe Kublai is uncontested ruler chosen in a proper kurultai) so the conquest of China is quicker and started earlier( Kublai had to make peace with China for 10 years). Strategically China is doomed- it is isolated and attacked from 3 sides- from north-west by Mongke himself, from north by Kublai and from west by Uryuhadai ( I don’t know how his name is written in English; he’s the Subutai’s son and a prominent general who conquered Yunnan ). The Mongols don’t have to make any deal with Chinese (like Kublai had) because they don’t have a war in their rear and probably will kill 70-75 millions of Sun Chinese ( they killed 40 million of 45 in North China).


b) 2. Hulagu don’t have to split his forces and return to Persia like he had in OTL. So no Ayn Jalut and Egypt can also be conquered ( especially if Hulagu will be able to get some reinforcements and if Mongolia proper is in order he will likely get them).


c) 3.There is no war between Hulgids and Jochids so Neguder’s ( it’s the commander-in-chief in India) troops who are composed of loyal to Jochids men are not cut off by rival Hulagids and don’t have to fight them . They can concentrate on Delhi Sultanate and will if not immediately but surely after the end of war in China get reinforcements. So Delhi Sultanate will also probably fall by 1275-1280.


d) 4.Mongol Empire is united for 40 years by strong ruler who strictly follows Yassa and doesn’t have any traditions of civil war at all. By the end of ATL Mongke Most of Eurasia is conquered. Independent regions are probably only Indochina, South India and Europe. Do you belive that SUCH Mongol Empire will stop and don’t try to conquer them? I don’t. And while South India and Indochina are covered by jungles ( though Mongols fougt in jungles preaty successful –they conquered North Burma for example) terrain in Europe is rather open…



e) 5.After Mongols finish with the last unconquered regions in Eurasia ( probably, excluding Scandinavia and some island states),they kill off all the settled population ( this act is strictly recommended in Yassa- settled population is sinful and untrustworthy). All the Eurasia and Soth Africa is populated mainly by nomads. And most settled population is now concentrated in America.
How do you like such a scenario?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The problems with them keeping together is that a) The empire was too damned big to be administered as a single unit and b) Our good Khan had too many male relatives who all deserved a piece after his death.
 
In an alternate timeline with limitless pod's, anything's possible. For example, have them advance the use of gunpowder in more battle-decisive ways like powerful guns, for example, versus hand cannons in otl.
I agree however that the size of an empire ceteris paribus is inversely proportional to its duration. A better succession system would at least help them.
 
The Mongols could probably cut their way to France, but they'd likely collapse shortly after that. That incarnation probably would only last 20-25 years TOPS. The Mongols could conquer basically anything, it was HOLDING it that was the problem :D
 
IfMongke Khan dies say in 1289 ( his brother Kublai Khan died when he was 79) instead of dying in 1259 during the siege of Hezhou, Mongols can actually conquer most of Eurasia. ...
How do you like such a scenario?

That was an excellent one!

I agree with you on most points with the exception of the last:
e) 5.After Mongols finish with the last unconquered regions in Eurasia ( probably, excluding Scandinavia and some island states),they kill off all the settled population ( this act is strictly recommended in Yassa- settled population is sinful and untrustworthy). All the Eurasia and Soth Africa is populated mainly by nomads.
If in OTL the Mongols did not kill off all the settled population it would be strange to expect that from them in any other ATL.
There were examples in human history when civilizations were levelled to the ground by nomads and semi-nomads. Like Indo-European invaders (Indo-Arians) did with Indo-Harrapian culture). But it was long ago.
The world has changed.
Most of the nomads (and the Mongols were not an exception to this rule) valued the things made by the settled population. So they needed it.
There was some understanding that "if we kill all of them, then who will we plunder after that?":D

It is like with the hunting - a wise hunter doesn't kill all the animals. He must think about the future.
 
That was an excellent one!

I agree with you on most points with the exception of the last: If in OTL the Mongols did not kill off all the settled population it would be strange to expect that from them in any other ATL.
There were examples in human history when civilizations were levelled to the ground by nomads and semi-nomads. Like Indo-European invaders (Indo-Arians) did with Indo-Harrapian culture). But it was long ago.
The world has changed.
Most of the nomads (and the Mongols were not an exception to this rule) valued the things made by the settled population. So they needed it.
There was some understanding that "if we kill all of them, then who will we plunder after that?":D

I actually find tens of millions killed in Pre-Modern times ASB, unless there is a famine or natural disaster and there are more Chinese than Mongols and that might cause their demise earlier than in OTL.
 
For the Mongol Empire to last as a single state it needs to import the idea of primogeniture. Given that there will be losers when this is done a civil war plus loyal satraps will be needed to establish it.

From then onwards there is a need for a strong central leader to keep the show on the road. Eventually, some weakling is going to put on the throne and the wheels come off. They because the Mongols don't have the institutions to maintain a continental empire the way say the Early Modern Spanish did. Even then the latter had trouble with the Cortes of their world.

The fact is that the Mongol grew too fast to put such institutions in place as the empire was created. It is such not surprising that it partitioned after Genghis's Death.

On maximum size, apart from south China, the Mongols conquered any land that Central Asian nomads had conquered before and no other. To conquer the South China whilst the leadership was Mongol the rank and file were Chinese so technically a Mongol army did not conquer south China any more than a Mongol Navy would have conquered Japan.

The fact is as Mongols they had reached their limits and to conquer/subjugate more territory they would have fight differently so to speak. And they could: to defeat the Burmese in 1277 they fought as infantry. Also, after initially sending an army they withdraw because of the heat and malaria. To go further they would have to fight as Europeans or Chinese.
 
That was an excellent one!

I agree with you on most points with the exception of the last: If in OTL the Mongols did not kill off all the settled population it would be strange to expect that from them in any other ATL.
There were examples in human history when civilizations were levelled to the ground by nomads and semi-nomads. Like Indo-European invaders (Indo-Arians) did with Indo-Harrapian culture). But it was long ago.
The world has changed.
Most of the nomads (and the Mongols were not an exception to this rule) valued the things made by the settled population. So they needed it.
There was some understanding that "if we kill all of them, then who will we plunder after that?"
clip_image001.gif


It is like with the hunting - a wise hunter doesn't kill all the animals. He must think about the future.

I actually find tens of millions killed in Pre-Modern times ASB, unless there is a famine or natural disaster and there are more Chinese than Mongols and that might cause their demise earlier than in OTL.
Well, actually Mongols DID killed most of settled population before Kublai( who started using Chinese “tumans” because he didn’t get reinforcements from Mongolia which was caused by civil war). In North China there was killed 40 million settled population of 45. Central Asia was absolutely depopulated - if reached premongol level of population in XX century! Before Mongols it was the richest and the most developed part of Persia which was the richest and the most developed part of Muslim World. And Persia itself was ruled by nomads for several centuries after that.



And about goods made by settled population Genghis Khan believed it to be the main reason of conflicts among the nomads. So he considered that all the settled population is sinful and corrupted and so must be destroyed. Yassa is about it.


So what Mongols conquered properly they depopulated. This rule was broken by Kublai but this won’t happen in ATL. And in fact there isn’t much problem in holding territory where all the settled population is destroyed- nomads hold Central Asia till the Russian Empire came.

I'm not stating that Mongols after such a conquest stay as a single centralized state- God forbid! But they can destroy all the states in Eurasia and turn all the continent into one single paradise for nomads.
 
Last edited:
Well, actually Mongols DID killed most of settled population before Kublai( who started using Chinese “tumans” because he didn’t get reinforcements from Mongolia which was caused by civil war). In North China there was killed 40 million settled population of 45. Central Asia was absolutely depopulated - if reached premongol level of population in XX century! Before Mongols it was the richest and the most developed part of Persia which was the richest and the most developed part of Muslim World. And Persia itself was ruled by nomads for several centuries after that.



And about goods made by settled population Genghis Khan believed it to be the main reason of conflicts among the nomads. So he considered that all the settled population is sinful and corrupted and so must be destroyed. Yassa is about it.


So what Mongols conquered properly they depopulated. This rule was broken by Kublai but this won’t happen in ATL. And in fact there isn’t much problem in holding territory where all the settled population is destroyed- nomads hold Central Asia till the Russian Empire came.

I'm not stating that Mongols after such a conquest stay as a single centralized state- God forbid! But they can destroy all the states in Eurasia and turn all the continent into one single paradise for nomads.
The ancestors of Hakkas actually migrated to the Song Dynasty territory at that time and many Chinese disapeared from the census.
 
Last edited:
To conquer the South China whilst the leadership was Mongol the rank and file were Chinese so technically a Mongol army did not conquer south China any more than a Mongol Navy would have conquered Japan.
It is a famous saying - "India was conquered by the British with the hands of the Indians." But we nevertheless call it the British conquest.
And about goods made by settled population Genghis Khan believed it to be the main reason of conflicts among the nomads...
So what Mongols conquered properly they depopulated. This rule was broken by Kublai but this won’t happen in ATL.
This rule was broken by Gengiz Khan himself. There is a well known legend that there was a certain Chinese official who managed to persuade Gengiz Khan that it was better to keep at least some Chenese alive in order to exploit them further. (Actually it was not the legend).
But they can destroy all the states in Eurasia and turn all the continent into one single paradise for nomads.
As for the states I agree (and may add that they could take some parts of Africa as well, Egypt for instance).
But want to stress that they needed settled population. At least some settled Chinese to produce silk clothes.
What kind of paradise will it be without silk gowns? :D
 
On maximum size, apart from south China, the Mongols conquered any land that Central Asian nomads had conquered before and no other. To conquer the South China whilst the leadership was Mongol the rank and file were Chinese so technically a Mongol army did not conquer south China any more than a Mongol Navy would have conquered Japan.

Since it is almost impossible for the Mongols to conquer Southern China I think it is possible that the indigenous population of Southern China to recover if the Northern Chinese rebel rather than some fleeing South and some cooperating with the mongols.
 
Last edited:
Since it is almost impossible for the Mongols to conquer Southern China I think it is possible that the indigenous population of Southern China to recover if the Northern Chinese rebel rather than some fleeing South and some cooperating with the mongols.

Except, you know, they did.
 
Except, you know, they did.

And they did it while they had a 40-year civil war. So they got almost no reinforcements.

That is because the Northern Chinese became obedient to their Mongol masters, they became the Mongolian reinforcements because the Mongols were nice to the Northern Chinese under Kublai Khan without Kublai Khan or had Kublai Khan been different it would had been impossible.
 
Last edited:
Russian said:
As for the states I agree (and may add that they could take some parts of Africa as well, Egypt for instance)
This is to put it nicely, incorrect. The Mongols need large numbers of horses and space to maneouvre them in battle. Take out either that they fall to be just another bunch of scruffy sheep herders. You can't take horse herds through mountains or deserts very easily and you can't maneouvre cavalry very easily in forests, jungle, mountains or paddy fields. Moreover cavalry armies need good grazing, which why Attila the Hun did not hang around in Italy on his raids, but routinely fell back to Hungary.

In addition an organised state can equip cavalry better than the Mongols and train them to an equal or higher standard. Egypt did so and that is why the Mamluks stuffed the Mongols at Ain Jalut

Fabius Cunctator said:
In an alternate timeline with limitless pod's, anything's possible. For example, have them advance the use of gunpowder in more battle-decisive ways like powerful guns, for example, versus hand cannons in otl.
It is unlikely that the Mongols would have deployed much artillery outside sieges for example developing pistols. Their mind set was practically the similar as the various Muslim Turkic warriors, namely real men fight with bow, lance and sword and from horseback. You have to be degenerate city dwellers like the Europeans and to a less extent the Chinese to use whatever weapon you can lay your hands on to do the business.

Whilst a few can made some of the mind switch as Genghis did, the majority will hold to the old ways. Even Genghis only made part of the switch to the point of being able to successfully siege cities. In what are reputed to be his words "The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."
 
Top