Successful Mongol conquest of Vietnam

Would the Mongols send Han exiles from China to settle and pacify Vietnam? Under Mongol generals, of course.

Could holding Vietnam lead to a more successful campaign in Java, as well?
 
I see a situation similar to OTL Hungary. That is, it causes a disruption, a few dozen (thousand) people die, but then they leave and consolidate in areas closer to home. Vietnam is too far away and too different to the Mongol steppe to be well controlled by them. In all their other conquests, only China was not a desert and held for a long time. Russia north of Kiev was abandoned, India was abandoned, Korea was never very strongly held.

- BNC
 
I see a situation similar to OTL Hungary. That is, it causes a disruption, a few dozen (thousand) people die, but then they leave and consolidate in areas closer to home. Vietnam is too far away and too different to the Mongol steppe to be well controlled by them. In all their other conquests, only China was not a desert and held for a long time. Russia north of Kiev was abandoned, India was abandoned, Korea was never very strongly held.

- BNC

The Middle East and Persia don't count?
 
As I said, China is unique in that it fulfils both "Not a Desert", and "Held for a Long Time".

I'm fairly sure Persia and the Mid East are deserts, or similar enough to the steppes to still be ideal Mongolic nomad terrain. They aren't full of jungles like SE Asia is anyway.

- BNC
 
"What are the consequences for Mongol dominated Southeast Asia?" was the question. I don't feel the need to keep up this pointless debate... see ya!

If the Mongols conquer Vietnam, they dominate Southeast Asia. Nothing about what you quoted suggests that would last forever.

You're reading something into the OP that transparently was never there.
 
I don't have my sources nearby but as far as I remember, the conquest was a close run thing, with the Vietnamese accepting to pay nominal tribute afterwards, although it may be an atavic reaction to paying tribute to whoever comes from China.

My take is that the ongol could take it but certainly not pacify it, unless they get massive forces and coopt the elites. And even then, you have to coopt EVERYONE and then engage in cultural cleansing while still coopting the people.

Just look at the war of 1407, that's the closest China got to taking Vietnam back, and that was a ten year effort involving a 280.000 soldiers invasion force (those are the realistic figures). Otherwise, you get insurgencies popping up in Nghé An and in the mountains and smaller deltas. Vietnam was extremely agrarian and so very decentralised. You have to fight valley by valley to get it done and always run the risk of insurgencies popping up in your back.

The French only managed it via overwhelming force and pacifying an area torn apart by rebellions. And even then, couldn't keep it for long, despite elite cooptation through Protectorate.

However, if the Mongols were really clever, they'd make an alliance with Ciampa and the Lao to occupy territory, the Ciampas were still fearsome at that time I believe.
 
If the Mongols conquer Vietnam, they dominate Southeast Asia. Nothing about what you quoted suggests that would last forever.

You're reading something into the OP that transparently was never there.

If they conquer it, they don't necessarily dominate it. They conquered Hungary, but they never did more than write the word "Mongol" on a map there. And without domination, their nominal rule won't be around long.

- BNC
 
In all their other conquests, only China was not a desert and held for a long time. Russia north of Kiev was abandoned, India was abandoned, Korea was never very strongly held.
The Mongolian steppes themselves aren't desert, unless you have a very loose definition of "desert."

China isn't unique. The kingdom of Dali was primarily rugged, elevated, forested mountains, and the Mongols held that for a full generation longer than they held China. Korea is similarly mountainous and the fact that it wasn't directly integrated into the Yuan empire is irrelevant - Russia was never directly integrated into the empire either and that was very normal for a medieval nomadic empire, considering that the only significant areas where the Mongols governed directly were China (including Yunnan) and the Persianate world. Muscovy itself, of course, developed under Mongol patronage despite being 5° more northerly than Kiev, although you claim that the Mongols abandoned Russia north of Kiev.

The Mongols were an extremely versatile empire and Vietnam's terrain, while cumbersome, posed no insurmountable challenge.
 
I'll admit to generalising it a bit. The Mongols certainly didn't get the far north of Russia (Novgorod and Pskov).

Dali was a Chinese vassal, later a Mongol vassal from what I've read. Not completely ruled like Persia or China. Vietnam would probably just pay a bigger tribute than OTL if they got more losses in battle, but no big change. Vietnam was insurmountable if they weren't prepared to make sacrifices elsewhere. It could certainly be done if they didn't focus efforts on Russia and Baghdad instead.

- BNC
 
If they conquer it, they don't necessarily dominate it. They conquered Hungary, but they never did more than write the word "Mongol" on a map there. And without domination, their nominal rule won't be around long.

- BNC

They overran Hungary and then immediately left. I don't think it's very accurate to say they conquered the place.

We agree that if Vietnam were "conquered" only in the flash-in-the-pan sense that Hungary was, that would not translate to domination of Southeast Asia.
 
They would have influence in the place, but not domination.

- BNC

Indeed.

Had they conquered the place properly, though - in the normal sense of the word - it would be quite a different matter. The states on the opposite bank of the Mekong would take Mongol imperial rule very seriously while it lasted, and no doubt enter tributary relationships more pronounced than any since before the Song. Perhaps more than had ever existed, for that matter.

Given the normal role a strong China always had in relations with Southeast Asian states, I think characterizing a Yuan China at its height which has annexed Vietnam as "dominating" the region is eminently reasonable. Of course it's a very emotive word, so I understand if you use it differently.
 
The states on the opposite bank of the Mekong
What bank of the Mekong? Vietnam during the Mongol invasion was limited to north of Quang Binh:
Nam_Tien.PNG

Vietnam did not control any part of the Mekong Delta until the late 17th century (even in 1700 the Mekong Delta was still a wilderness with Khmer villages here and there, really). The Mongol invasion is centuries before even the 1471 conquest of Champa, whose historic core became the Vietnamese province of Quang Nam. Yes, the conquest of Vietnam would bring Champa into much closer connections with China (perhaps the Mongols would even attempt to conquer it - Khubilai had such dreams OTL), although the fact that all ships going to China (except those from Japan and Korea) had to pass through Champa meant that the Chinese and Chams were already close. The OTL Mongol interventions in northern mainland Southeast Asia, such as their patronage of Tai client states in the upper Mekong (which would eventually morph into modern Laos), would doubtlessly increase. But I doubt they would have significantly greater influence than OTL on the Chao Phraya Basin west of the Mekong, nor would the Yuan have any particular reason to support the decaying Khmer empire.
 
Last edited:
Indeed.
...
Given the normal role a strong China always had in relations with Southeast Asian states, I think characterizing a Yuan China at its height which has annexed Vietnam as "dominating" the region is eminently reasonable. Of course it's a very emotive word, so I understand if you use it differently.

Annexing Vietnam would definitely mean domination, as annexation usually means the complete destruction of the previous state. The likelihood of that, even in an ATL, is quite low without a sacrifice somewhere else though.

- BNC
 
What bank of the Mekong? Vietnam during the Mongol invasion was limited to north of Quang Binh:

That is a very good map.

Annexing Vietnam would definitely mean domination, as annexation usually means the complete destruction of the previous state. The likelihood of that, even in an ATL, is quite low without a sacrifice somewhere else though.

- BNC

Well, I would say things are a bit more murky when it comes to Vietnam and whatever comes from China. I mostly interest myself in Ho Qui Ly and after (so XVth century onwards) but Vietnam has often been very close to being a satellite of China, at least culturally.

I was reading a fun tidbits saying that the French translation of the N'Guyen code of the XIXth century is actually used as a proxy translation to Chinese law of the same period as it's so slavishly close.

Of course you have periods which are more distinct, like the Later-Lé dynasty (Lé Loi, Lé Than Tong...) which lasted for a century. Yes, I know they technically lasted longer but they were figureheads.

My point is that you can have a dominated, even annexed Vietnam if you have the cooperation of the elites. They were already looking to China, adopting Chinese customs and Chinese philosophy. Now if you want a full cultural integration into the Empire, now that takes a lot of resources.
 
My point is that you can have a dominated, even annexed Vietnam if you have the cooperation of the elites. They were already looking to China, adopting Chinese customs and Chinese philosophy. Now if you want a full cultural integration into the Empire, now that takes a lot of resources.

Where would they get the "lot of resources"? Europe (or more, Russia) is the least valuable region to them. A hundred thousand steppe nomads can't pull that quantity of stuff out of nothing.

- BNC
 
What bank of the Mekong? Vietnam during the Mongol invasion was limited to north of Quang Binh:
Nam_Tien.PNG


Vietnam did not control any part of the Mekong Delta until the late 17th century (even in 1700 the Mekong Delta was still a wilderness with Khmer villages here and there, really). The Mongol invasion is centuries before even the 1471 conquest of Champa, whose historic core became the Vietnamese province of Quang Nam. Yes, the conquest of Vietnam would bring Champa into much closer connections with China (perhaps the Mongols would even attempt to conquer it - Khubilai had such dreams OTL), although the fact that all ships going to China (except those from Japan and Korea) had to pass through Champa meant that the Chinese and Chams were already close. The OTL Mongol interventions in northern mainland Southeast Asia, such as their patronage of Tai client states in the upper Mekong (which would eventually morph into modern Laos), would doubtlessly increase. But I doubt they would have significantly greater influence than OTL on the Chao Phraya Basin west of the Mekong, nor would the Yuan have any particular reason to support the decaying Khmer empire.

I was aware of the Delta, actually, but I've never seen such a lovely and detailed depiction of Vietnamese expansion, so I'm grateful. Regarding the river banks: doesn't the Mekong also delineate the Laos-Vietnamese border in the north? I may be revealing the limits of my SEAsian geographic knowledge.

Other than the one big assumption (the Khmer), what you describe is what I meant - just with better knowledge of the region and a fantastic map. You went right to supporting the Khmer, which I hadn't particularly considered. My expectation was that the Yuan would seek to extract an expression of nominal fealty and perhaps tribute if they had a stronger presence in Vietnam. Perhaps you could speak to why this might or might not be realistic, since you clearly understand the region more.
 
That is a very good map.

Well, I would say things are a bit more murky when it comes to Vietnam and whatever comes from China. I mostly interest myself in Ho Qui Ly and after (so XVth century onwards) but Vietnam has often been very close to being a satellite of China, at least culturally.

I was reading a fun tidbits saying that the French translation of the N'Guyen code of the XIXth century is actually used as a proxy translation to Chinese law of the same period as it's so slavishly close.

Of course you have periods which are more distinct, like the Later-Lé dynasty (Lé Loi, Lé Than Tong...) which lasted for a century. Yes, I know they technically lasted longer but they were figureheads.

My point is that you can have a dominated, even annexed Vietnam if you have the cooperation of the elites. They were already looking to China, adopting Chinese customs and Chinese philosophy. Now if you want a full cultural integration into the Empire, now that takes a lot of resources.

How much cultural integration is really necessary? Take Guangxi, for example. One could argue that independent Vietnam was as much or more a part of the Chinese cultural continuum. I suppose it's probably not too late for the place to become a province indefinitely, depending on how those overthrowing the Yuan choose to handle things.
 
Enough cultural integration to consider the conquered territory as "Mongol land", or at least "Land of the Khanate", as opposed to "Our land in the hands of foreigners". This will largely depend on the populace.

- BNC
 
Top