I could conceivably see the mongols conquering and incorporating eastern europe, northern india and egypt into their empire and vasselization the neighboring states but like abdul said, their military model required the existence of vast amounts of nearby grazing lands.
Plausibility check: How big a Mongol Empire?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The Egyptians would have a problem with non-Muslim rulers, but what I meant was there is no way to get a Mongol army into Egypt. It would turn into a puddle of horse-goo crossing the Sinai.
An initial invasion might have no compunctions about ravaging and consuming everything to fuel their army, but that's not going to work well in an extended campaign to reduce Western Europe - impossible, I might say.
Persia allied with the Avars pulled the same thing with the Byzantines. By the nadir of Byzantine fortunes, little was left of the empire BUT the city, yet Heraklios managed to crush the Persians and get it all back. Without destroying the administrative center of the empire, you're still stuck with trying to cross the Bosphorus, reduce the fortified Byzantine cities in Asia, which largely have sea supply and are very difficult to deal with, and no real access to the European parts of the empire, which by this period are the core, plus all the islands.
As for lasting Mongol states, true, they were rare, but the Golden Horde did pretty well and lasted as the Crimean Khanate until the late 18th c, so that's a good 500 years. I don't think they will necessarily be assimilated everywhere, just where there are sophisticated cultures with large and dense populations. Much of Eastern Europe will assimilate into their culture - look at Seljuk/Ottoman Anatolia and the Crimea.
An initial invasion might have no compunctions about ravaging and consuming everything to fuel their army, but that's not going to work well in an extended campaign to reduce Western Europe - impossible, I might say.
Persia allied with the Avars pulled the same thing with the Byzantines. By the nadir of Byzantine fortunes, little was left of the empire BUT the city, yet Heraklios managed to crush the Persians and get it all back. Without destroying the administrative center of the empire, you're still stuck with trying to cross the Bosphorus, reduce the fortified Byzantine cities in Asia, which largely have sea supply and are very difficult to deal with, and no real access to the European parts of the empire, which by this period are the core, plus all the islands.
As for lasting Mongol states, true, they were rare, but the Golden Horde did pretty well and lasted as the Crimean Khanate until the late 18th c, so that's a good 500 years. I don't think they will necessarily be assimilated everywhere, just where there are sophisticated cultures with large and dense populations. Much of Eastern Europe will assimilate into their culture - look at Seljuk/Ottoman Anatolia and the Crimea.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
If you look at the title of the Ottoman Sultans, they didn't call themselves primarily "Sultan" "Emperor" "King" or any of that; they called themselves "Han" - that title having the most prestige and the equivalent of Emperor. If anyone has been to the Topkapi palace, you'll note the HQ of the most powerful empire on earth was laid out like a nomad camp.
Decentralization also means the individual states would be left to fend for themselves, with lack of coordinated defence.
War has political aims above military aims. Laying waste to a few feudal estates would more than likely lead to capitulation of several more. Typical Mongol rule in far flong regions of the empire was to bring in tribute states anyways. It would be much easier to pay your taxes than risk war.
I would say that the relative poverty in Europe at the time would make outright occupation economicaly unattractive for the Mongols. But if it were, I don't see Europe's decentralization working to its advantage.
But the Mongol armies were only cavalry based when it suited them. Just as often they fought as foot infantry and as sailors. If you look at the campaign against the Song, the Mongols did some of the largest amphbious landings and mountain warfare in history. South China was far from ideal grazing land. Later Mongol invasions were also naval operations, examples would be Japan and Indonesia.
What made the Mongol armies unqiue was how quickly they adapted to different challenges. They were very much like a modern army, being a learning machine as well as a fighting machine. Cavalry warfare was just the first form of war they mastered.
Although the Mongols may have been best known as horse archers by plains dwelling civilizations that they attacked, they were not seen that narrowly by others who lived in mountainous and island settlements.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The point is that Mongol institutions and influence lasted a long time in many places.
The title "Han" is the Turkish spelling for "Khan".
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Many of the non-cavalry troops you're talking about are auxilliaries from Korea or China that are not really transportable to Europe and are a result of their control of China. The Mongols did NOT use such troops in the West - because they weren't there.
The decentralization in the West makes a huge difference. A feudal lord will either fight to the death or work out a tribute arrangement. Either way, the Mongols either have to face sieges and serious attrition, or have teeny vassals that will mean only the most ephemeral control.
Let's postulate on the other hand a large centralized non-feudal empire, in say, Germany. The Mongols could take the capital, gain control over the complex administrative machinery, establish themselves as the new dynasty, and there you have it, a large conquest. In the Europe of the times that couldn't happen. Take Paris, and that's no big deal - it gives you control over very little.
The decentralization in the West makes a huge difference. A feudal lord will either fight to the death or work out a tribute arrangement. Either way, the Mongols either have to face sieges and serious attrition, or have teeny vassals that will mean only the most ephemeral control.
Let's postulate on the other hand a large centralized non-feudal empire, in say, Germany. The Mongols could take the capital, gain control over the complex administrative machinery, establish themselves as the new dynasty, and there you have it, a large conquest. In the Europe of the times that couldn't happen. Take Paris, and that's no big deal - it gives you control over very little.
The invasion of Song China saw the use of Mongols in the dismounted role, in addition to Arab and according to one source, Russian auxilliaries. No doubt there were others as well.
Had they wanted to occupy Western Europe, I'm sure they could impress Russian, East European, and Arab auxilliaries for the job. It's a chicken or the egg question. Did they not invade Western Europe because they had no auxilliaries, or where there no auxilliaries because they didn't invade Western Europe? I would argue for the latter.
I think your typical feudal lord would conclude this chances of fighting alone without allies is minimum and will most likely capitulate. A domino effect is then initiated. Mongol rulers often didn't make their presence felt when they faced no serious resistance, this is part of the reason their conquests were successful.
I agree it is a different challenge for the Mongols requiring different strategy. It may very well also be that the cost-benefit analysis will tilt in favor of leaving Europe alone. My point being, were it worth the trouble, or if Europe became a threat in some way, a de-centralized system presents its own weaknesses all too easy for the Mongols to exploit. There's no such thing as "divided we stand, united we fall". Taking each individual fiefdom one at a time makes things easier and less risky, even if the overall campaign becomes more complex. What is more complex is not always more difficult. What is simple, like invading a major power, is not necessarily easier.
Last edited:
This will actually going to have interesting consequences. I don't think you would gonna have a Mongol East Indies right away. But surely for a Mongol Java, especially, Mongol Eastern Java. This would have a major impact on South East Asia as whole really. If we choose a short lasting time of Mongol presence there (which would be the most likely to happen anyway), than we'd see the Islamic Samudra Pasai in Aceh who would have survived for a well enough longer time without a Majapahit threat, and this would eventually give them the chance to dominate Nusantara, at the very least the Western part of it. This will certainly influence the world significantly and I'd say everything will be different after 1450 in this ATL. I want to see a time line made out from this PoD.
Paging Tony Jones...
The thing about decentralisation is it makes lasting conquest very difficult.
As Abdul has said, in large centralised states you remove the highest executive (or just place yourself above them as some 'high king') and keep everything else the same. The Mongols receive tribute and the king they have placed to rule the state knows his position is at once dependent upon the Mongols and that the Mongols could easilly have him replaced. He has strong reason to be loyal and keep the tribute flowing.
In de-centralised states this isn't true. You cannot wipe out all the Feudal aristocracy and reducing every castle from the Vistula to the bay of Biscay would take decades. If, as tends to be implied, the Mongols gather their tribute based on 'awe' then this is going to be a transient feeling. Almost every noble in the feudal system had an eye on self-advancement. If the Mongols are not there in strength, no tribute is going to be sent. Ravaging the population to support their many horses might work for a single campaign lasting a season, but most castles are designed to last that long. With most of their horses dead the Mongols will find themselves strung out beseiging a great number of forts and facing an overwhelmingly large feudal levy.
Can the Mongols maintain an occupationary force of any strength in Europe? Yes, obviously. But if they are reduced to drawing on European auxiliaries then the army is less 'Mongol' and more 'European'. The same European forces who have been completely incapable of building anything like a universal-empire in the last half a millenium (and if you take out Charlemagne/Byzantium, its nearly a full millenium!).
As Abdul has said, in large centralised states you remove the highest executive (or just place yourself above them as some 'high king') and keep everything else the same. The Mongols receive tribute and the king they have placed to rule the state knows his position is at once dependent upon the Mongols and that the Mongols could easilly have him replaced. He has strong reason to be loyal and keep the tribute flowing.
In de-centralised states this isn't true. You cannot wipe out all the Feudal aristocracy and reducing every castle from the Vistula to the bay of Biscay would take decades. If, as tends to be implied, the Mongols gather their tribute based on 'awe' then this is going to be a transient feeling. Almost every noble in the feudal system had an eye on self-advancement. If the Mongols are not there in strength, no tribute is going to be sent. Ravaging the population to support their many horses might work for a single campaign lasting a season, but most castles are designed to last that long. With most of their horses dead the Mongols will find themselves strung out beseiging a great number of forts and facing an overwhelmingly large feudal levy.
Can the Mongols maintain an occupationary force of any strength in Europe? Yes, obviously. But if they are reduced to drawing on European auxiliaries then the army is less 'Mongol' and more 'European'. The same European forces who have been completely incapable of building anything like a universal-empire in the last half a millenium (and if you take out Charlemagne/Byzantium, its nearly a full millenium!).
Rockingham
Banned
I believe the question is how big, not how long.....
Japan, Java, some more of the East Indies, Burma, Egypt and the Mecca are all plausible. Not sure how far they could extend into Europe.
Seeing as he seems to favour more recent POD's I doubt it.... in any case, what real effect would it have outside South East Asia, beyond undirectly related butterflies? Nothing grandiose methinks for a long time, unless I'm underestimating South East Asia's importance significantly.
Japan, Java, some more of the East Indies, Burma, Egypt and the Mecca are all plausible. Not sure how far they could extend into Europe.
Paging Tony Jones...
Seeing as he seems to favour more recent POD's I doubt it.... in any case, what real effect would it have outside South East Asia, beyond undirectly related butterflies? Nothing grandiose methinks for a long time, unless I'm underestimating South East Asia's importance significantly.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I don't understand your point about feudal lords. If he capitulates, he has absolutely nothing. It makes more sense to fight or accept vassaldom. If he is alone without allies, it's better to hide in his castle and hope the Mongols pass on instead of investing the energy in trying to conquer him.
Which leads to the other issue that there is nothing in Western Europe worth the horrendous investment that would be required to reduce it.
The Mongols were militarily formidable, but something they could NOT endure was attrition, as they didn't have the population base to replace casualties. Almost all the males went to war. When they died, that was it. Operating in an alien and hostile environment trying to reduce an endless series of fortifications in regions really poorly suited to horse armies is just not practicable.
Yes, Mongols could and did fight dismounted, but then they would lose their only real advantage over Western troops.
The Mongols had Chinese manpower resources because they swooped in and suddenly took over. They can't do that in Europe, so they aren't going to have European manpower resources.
Which leads to the other issue that there is nothing in Western Europe worth the horrendous investment that would be required to reduce it.
The Mongols were militarily formidable, but something they could NOT endure was attrition, as they didn't have the population base to replace casualties. Almost all the males went to war. When they died, that was it. Operating in an alien and hostile environment trying to reduce an endless series of fortifications in regions really poorly suited to horse armies is just not practicable.
Yes, Mongols could and did fight dismounted, but then they would lose their only real advantage over Western troops.
The Mongols had Chinese manpower resources because they swooped in and suddenly took over. They can't do that in Europe, so they aren't going to have European manpower resources.
And of course teh conquest of Southern China from the Song was a brutal slog; and that was near the Mongolian heartland.
He would gain favour with the Mongol Empire. Which could mean he gets to manage his neighbour's fiefdoms for the Mongols. He would gain richer pastures, take a percentage of the taxes. That's how divide and conquer always worked.
No arguements there. I was talking about whether it was theoritically possible to overcome decentralized European feudal states.
Not if they bring in the Hungarians, Russians, or Arabs to fight for them. Or even disenfranchised European peasants for that matter.
They would lose some advantage yes. But their other advantages were having a meritocratic leadership structure, advanced communications, the ability to coordinate at the strategic level, the ability to assimilate foreign armies, psychological operations, adaptibility, and of course, archery.
Basically what the Mongols had was an institutionaly modern army in the Medieval world.
The Mongols took decades to takeover China. In fact China was the last place they conquered. Conquering China's centralized system was simpler but it was very difficult for them. Monke Khan himself died (some say killed) during the attempt.
In a latter day example, the British conquest of India shows decentralization can be overcome. The individual princely states eventually submitted one by one. The choice they faced was not nearly as stark as a "lose everything or die fighting" scenario.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The British weren't the Mongols.
As per your first paragraph, that's not surrendering, that's cutting a deal, and can't lead to a long-term state for the Mongols, as such lords will rebel the minute they are able.
As per your first paragraph, that's not surrendering, that's cutting a deal, and can't lead to a long-term state for the Mongols, as such lords will rebel the minute they are able.
CanadianGoose
Banned
Mongols ruled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_steppe and it's fringes with any degree of sustainability (their exploits in SE Asia were really pushing their luck too hard). Steppe gave them an advantage of mobility, therefore any great mutiny in any part of their empire could be dealt with decisively by single force, which can then be used in other part (several simultaneous mutinies were huge bummers for Mongols and eventually were the reason of Empire's demise). They lose that advantage once they're leaving those areas. In Eastern Europe, Novgorod Republic, Poland and Lithuania were spared Mongol invasion by virtue of being too far in the woods. Therefore, one can draw line 300 miles (shrinking to probably less than 100 miles in mountains) around the Steppe and assume everything within it is possible part of Mongol realm. Besides what they got in OTL, they could claim generally everything South of Tatras, East of Alps and NE of Balkan mountains in Europe, plus solid control of the Middle East. Egypt is hard to reach but it can be done, so it is a coin toss.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Well put.
I would argue Egypt is beyond reach, but if the Mongols smashed the Mamelukes in Syria then converted to Islam, it's possible.
I don't see it as likely in the initial Mongol invasions, but once they began to assimilate they picked up a lot of tricks, i.e. the Seljuks -> Ottomans (originally not much different than Mongols) by ruling Persia -> Byzantium, etc. Pagan Mongols are not going to make much headway in the Muslim world, though - especially since it's largely defended by troops with similar abilities (i.e. Turkic horsemen).
I would argue Egypt is beyond reach, but if the Mongols smashed the Mamelukes in Syria then converted to Islam, it's possible.
I don't see it as likely in the initial Mongol invasions, but once they began to assimilate they picked up a lot of tricks, i.e. the Seljuks -> Ottomans (originally not much different than Mongols) by ruling Persia -> Byzantium, etc. Pagan Mongols are not going to make much headway in the Muslim world, though - especially since it's largely defended by troops with similar abilities (i.e. Turkic horsemen).
The Mongol conquests are best considered as a series of large scale campaigns, subjugating certain peoples or regions, and then lapses in between. If the Mongols would have been given one more solid expansion instead of retiring to choose a new Khan after Ogatei's death, I think the Mongols easily could have threatened Western Europe given one or two more big pushes. If Kayuk Khan and Batu Khan had not conflicted over the sucession to the Khanate, it undoubtedly would have been possible for one of them to have led the the Horde on yet another devastating push.
It always comes down to problems with successions in any empire. All of them were destroyed or weakened, so crippled, they could be crushed, by civil war.
It always comes down to problems with successions in any empire. All of them were destroyed or weakened, so crippled, they could be crushed, by civil war.