Tecumseh vs Ghenghis Khan

Not literally of course...that sounds silly even by alternate history standards. But one classic way of building a timeline is to 'borrow' history from another point and use it as the basis for a new timeline. To wit- Tecumseh and Ghenghis Khan. Two men who, in their own times, attempted to unite disparate factions of tribes into a single confederation with the ultimate goal of conquest. Khan succeeded, Tecumseh failed. The question is why? Based solely off the chances that the indian tribes and nations might unify (and not whether they stand any chance of success) could Tecumseh have succeeded by adopting the strategies of Ghenghis Khan?
 
No. The tribes Genghis Khan were uniting were politically disparate, but the Mongols had a greater cultural affinity than, say, the Shawnee and the Cherokee.

In addition, the Mongols were not particularly technologically behind the people they were conquering-they had a light cavalry at a time where light cavalry could stand up to an army on foot. Tecumseh had no light cavalry (the Plains Indians did, but they were further west) and even if he did, he was fighting against people who could withstand cavalry attacks with their artillery.

In addition, the Mongols had biological warfare on their side (they spread both measles and rinderpest to those they invaded) which the Indians most certainly did not.

So, ultimately, Tecumseh's army would have succumbed to inter-tribal warfare, disease, and bullets where Genghis Khan's would not have.
 
Top