Except my issue is with stuff like the hundred thousand claim, you ignore German claims that some random count could muster 10,000 men but you just accept without question that the Mongols could take 100,000 men, ten times what for the German count is a ridiculous exaggeration (which it was, I can give you that). That's a blind acceptance of Mongol supremacy that I take as just fanboyish and simplified. Yes the mongols created one of the worlds most massive empires in history, but that doesn't make Batu Khan a wizard. He's still just a guy who probably has at most fifty thousand people under arms and who still needs to keep them supplied and alive while fighting in inopportune terrain for years on end.
WI: Mongolia brakes into Germany
- Thread starter JosefStalin
- Start date
Except my issue is with stuff like the hundred thousand claim, you ignore German claims that some random count could muster 10,000 men but you just accept without question that the Mongols could take 100,000 men, ten times what for the German count is a ridiculous exaggeration (which it was, I can give you that). That's a blind acceptance of Mongol supremacy that I take as just fanboyish and simplified. Yes the mongols created one of the worlds most massive empires in history, but that doesn't make Batu Khan a wizard. He's still just a guy who probably has at most fifty thousand people under arms and who still needs to keep them supplied and alive while fighting in inopportune terrain for years on end.
They march in, win, realize they have expended valuable time and resources just to conquer Germany, then leave.
Dorozhand
Banned
I agree with you to a point. I would, however, defend at least part of the position by the sheer uniqueness of what they did. They pulled an Alexander at least six times over and brought all of Eurasia outside India and Japan under a single banner. Nearly everyone who chose to face them was destroyed, and witnessing their brutality made many willing to be vassals out of self preservation (which, btw, would probably be the decision of most of the German princes once they witness the Mongols do their thing on a couple of cities).
Their armies had an efficiency of resource use that reduced logistical strain and decreased travel time to a point that wouldn't again be reached until the age of radio, refrigeration and the railroad. Urbanized civilizations of millions of people, great cities, advanced technology and huge armies were laid waste at their feet, and Kublai would have succeeded too if weren't for those meddling typhoons.
Their tactics and weaponry, even given smaller numbers, were just so advantageous against the kinds of armies Europe possessed (which were the same kinds of armies the Chinese possessed in far larger quantity) that I wonder if it's even possible for them to win in any open engagement. What of the fortresses? They are besieged when the horsemen whip around them and defeat anything out in the open.
Had the Mongols never exploded out of the steppes, even a fraction of what they pulled would be considered ASB.
Last edited:
scholar
Banned
Quantity over Quality is never a good thing. Barring that nothing Europe had came close (except, arguably, Constantinople), the Mongols engaged in psychological warfare: surrender or die to the very last. They excelled in it. The Mongols only need to take three or four significant cities and raze it to the ground for more than half of the far weaker nobility that had nominally been their vassals to surrender under the promise of both autonomy and the possibility of wealth as auxiliary forces. Many of the nobility actively defected over to the Mongols, particularly amongst the Turks and Christian Middle Easterners. There's little reason to assume there wouldn't be similar success in Europe. Hell, Southern China was conquered by Chinese soldiers, Chinese officers, and mostly Chinese generals all in the name of the Mongols with the help of Arab siege weapons.
Vienna at the time of the Mongol Invasions was not even close to what it would become. If I recall correctly, it wasn't even really a city until about the time of the invasions to the east.
If it wasn't for those typhoons, alcoholism, untimely deaths, civil war. Poor Mongols, thwarted from world conquest...
France and Italy had a significant number of well-fortified cities and fortresses at the time of the Mongolian incursions. Their reduction would have required every bit of the seigecraft the Mongols employed against the Chinese.
But, the essential fact is that the Mongols never employed more than 4 tumens in their European venture. The Europeans towards the end of the invasion were beginning to muster organized resistance and even beginning to win against the Mongols (Klis in Croatia, Olomouc in Moravia). They would have required greater armies to polish off the HRE, the Latin Empire, etc. If the Mongols had returned with greater forces, Europe was going to be in for a very bad time. But they didn't, and it wasn't a slam dunk that they would, given different factions at Ögedei's court and other competing areas of interest for military resources.
Yes, Vienna was nothing more than a glorified town in the 13th C.
For reference, here's a thread from another board that goes into some detail re: pasturage and fortresses:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=149683&sid=dad4d602b8bda4834f91013c81dd2010
They do an especially good job scrutinizing the terrain around where the Mongols halted IOTL; it's the same place where the Magyars and Avars stalled, for what that's worth.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=149683&sid=dad4d602b8bda4834f91013c81dd2010
They do an especially good job scrutinizing the terrain around where the Mongols halted IOTL; it's the same place where the Magyars and Avars stalled, for what that's worth.
But to be fair, the Mongols increasingly employed levies from subject peoples in their armies. They were no longer armies consisting pretty much solely of horse-archers as were the earlier steppe nomads mentioned. Their armies were evolving into something more diversified and specialized. Also, there were a finite number of troops available from the core Mongol tribes.
However, any levies from such peoples become no more threatening than those peoples.
Which is to say, the further the "Mongol army" is from "highly disciplined expert horse archers from the steppes", the fewer advantages it has over a European force opposing it - the French vs. the German levies of the Mongols have a far better chance of kicking their asses than the French would against the horse archers.
If nothing else, that sacrifices the strategic speed they were famous for - the auxiliaries won't have great morale, either. Mongol units were also well-organized down to units of ten men, so unless you impose the same discipline on the aux. troops then they won't display the same small unit initiative. Oh, and you dilute the quality/cohesiveness of your officer corps, and most importantly, you just became a European army trying to conquer Europe. Ask the Huns how that pans out. Or, for that matter, anyone else.
The price of success...
The amazing quality and elan of early Mongol armies deteriorated over time due to the needs of Mega-Empire and the dearth of replacements from the core Mongol region.
The price of success...
The amazing quality and elan of early Mongol armies deteriorated over time due to the needs of Mega-Empire and the dearth of replacements from the core Mongol region.
It's almost as if a few tribes of horse nomads aren't numerous enough to take over the world...nah, that sounds silly.
tenthring
Banned
Why did every single steppe empire fail to conquer the world?
Infighting, civil war, plunder based societies that didn't conquer a place whenever the risk/reward wasn't there.
Almost any steppe people could conquer much more then they did if they retained all their advantages but also...weren't steppe people. All the awesome advantages that make you fierce and brutal horse archers also come with cons as well.
The Mongol's most likely wouldn't conquer Europe because they didn't want to, not as bad as they wanted to do other things. I'm not saying it could happen, but it reminds me a lot of Nazi wanks. Hitler was Hitler, you can't have him acting not like Hitler without it being ASB. Steppe empires where steppe empires, you can't have them acting different then who they are.
I have no problem inventing an AH where they come in and smash up the place a bit. But stay? Rule? For the long haul? Not a chance.
Infighting, civil war, plunder based societies that didn't conquer a place whenever the risk/reward wasn't there.
Almost any steppe people could conquer much more then they did if they retained all their advantages but also...weren't steppe people. All the awesome advantages that make you fierce and brutal horse archers also come with cons as well.
The Mongol's most likely wouldn't conquer Europe because they didn't want to, not as bad as they wanted to do other things. I'm not saying it could happen, but it reminds me a lot of Nazi wanks. Hitler was Hitler, you can't have him acting not like Hitler without it being ASB. Steppe empires where steppe empires, you can't have them acting different then who they are.
I have no problem inventing an AH where they come in and smash up the place a bit. But stay? Rule? For the long haul? Not a chance.
I disagree with this. The point of AH is the butterfly effect. What's the point of writing a divergent timeline if you will not diverge from the original timeline at all?
The butterfly effect doesn't change that ducks are ducks, though.
If you want the Mongols to be super awesome steppeborn horse archers, they're going to have all the features that come with those societies - you can't just pick the good ones out and leave the bad ones alone.
If you want them using European armies (from vassals, slaves, or some combination), they're going to have to work with the limits those armies had.
Can't apply the advantages from the former to armies raised and trained in entirely different ways and circumstances, or vice-versa.
That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to have your actors behave logically. For example, there are things an army can do that say, pirates or bandits can't. You don't see threads with titles like, "What if the Barbary pirates had tried to sack Marseilles in 1804?", because the answer is obvious: there'd be too much resistance for too little gain. If you want the Mongols or anyone else to ignore simple cost:benefit analysis, you at least need a logical, compelling reason. And if one doesn't readily present itself, then it makes more sense to just move on.
gaijin
Banned
That is of course assuming that each city and castle resists to the bitter end. They of course do this because ..uhmmm they are uhmmm European??
What would happen much more likely is that initially a few cities and castles resist, they die, all of them, to the last man, woman and child, no exceptions. One city takes a chance and surrenders, they live. News spreads, cities and castles realize the options and start surrendering more and more. Once the writing is on the wall I suspect the majority of these castles and cities will open their gates and submit. Why?? Because living is generally speaking more fun than being part of a skull pyramid.
As some posters mentioned before, the Mongol tendency for cruelty, was not just for the fun of it. it was part of a wide and really well developed arsenal of psychological and political warfare. Europe at this time is divided politically. If you honestly think the Mongols aren't gonna use this fact, you are gravely underestimating the Mongols.
This of course doesn't change the fact that there is better targets for the Mongols abound, but that is a different kettle of fish all together.