WI: Mongolia brakes into Germany
- Thread starter JosefStalin
- Start date
There was no more typical a castle in the Europe of the 13th C. than there was in China or Asia as a whole. Surviving older fortifications might be augmented by newer ones. Eastern European castles tended to still be of wood while further west, stone was becoming the norm. Fortifications, East and West) tended to share many common features as a form and function synergy (concentric defenses, higher and thicker curtain walls, etc.) --parallel developments in a response to the weapons technology employed against fortifications. Even the siege weapons (ballistas, catapults and trebuchets) employed by European and Asian armies tended to not greatly differ. It's interesting to note that the most powerful anti-fortification weapon of the time (13th C.) was the counterweight trebuchet -- an innovation developed in Europe and brought to China by Muslim engineers in the service of the Mongols which were used to reduce Song fortifications.
If we compare the fortifications of say, the southern French City of Carcassonne (13th C. walls) to those of Xi'an in China (the surviving walls are somewhat later), the primary difference is that the Chinese were protecting much greater urban populations. So, more a matter of scale than quality. (alas, the pictures I wanted to load to illustrate this are not loading
) *Point is, although the Europeans of the time may have been technologically behind the Song and many other Eastern states in general, military architecture was not one of those areas.
* It is also fair to note that there seem to be relatively few pre-Ming fortifications surviving in China. There seem to be a lot of complete re-builds and much has simply been erased by time, chance, and urban re-development.
Last edited:
We are going slightly off topic.
Going back to the original OP question. If Ogedei Khan had lived longer, if Subutai continued further that land area of modern Germany would be conquered.
Modern Germany is 357,021 sq km.
If we use historical data based on Jin and Song dynasty falls, 23 years for Jin, 44 years for Song ; Jin is roughly around 3M sq km while Song is around 2M sq km. The average land area Mongols took Jin per year is 130k sqkm while the Songs 45k sqkms per year.
So taking Germany(modern Germany land area) would be around 2-8 years.
If you could quantify social phenomena as an engineering problem, this might be valid. But I think this is fallacious reasoning in this context. Way too many variables being ignored.
Too illustrate this to the point of absurdity, lets add the Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia (1218-1221), which was approx. one million sq. miles and took about 3 years (including several significant sieges). 300,000+ sq. mi. a year! Or, a Germany a year.
Last edited:
scholar
Banned
I would posit a point of disagreement on that. China had been at war with itself and with the outside world for a significant amount of time and had developed extensive fortifications.
While practically useless without a strong military power manning the damn thing, I would bring up the Great Wall of China which was not a by-gone relic of the Qin Dynasty, but rather something continually built upon and revitalized as time went on. While not truly helped by the Jin, they built extensive fortifications north of the Great Wall. I would ask if medieval Europe had something analogous to this or had any history of massive public works projects designed to create fortifications and outlast sieges drawing from a significant manpower base stretching from hundreds of miles? My understanding has been that European fortifications were predominately small and built to be assisted by basic local landmarks and typically could not man much more than a few hundred men and would have to rely on conscripted peasantry to inflate their ranks. Things like citadels, fortresses, and even towers were pretty rare. One medium sized tower with a wall around it was considered something of a castle for much of northern Europe. I know its not anything like the major fortifications, the things the counterweight trebuchet were designed for, but if most of them are like that then most will surrender when news gets out that they don't play by the rules Europe was accustomed to at the time.
Well, since you're asking a general question about whether extensive fortification was used, I should point out that stuff like this exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Dubrovnik
I'm sure someone else can point you to similar things, although I'm having a hard time of it since I don't really know where to look myself. But yeah, there were such a thing as serious stone fortifications in Europe at this time.
The Great wall is in a class by itself but equally one of the least effective purpose-built fortifications in World History ---the original Maginot Line. Also, beyond showing that the various Chinese dynasties were capable of mobilizing large levies for vast public works, I don't think it too relevant to the conversation. What matters more is that major swathes of Europe had numerous fortifications built of formidable materials, engineered to not be walkovers if properly defended and that would tie down a determined Mongol army and their siege train. The fact that they were smaller meant that fewer defenders could be just as effective as larger numbers in a larger fortification.
China also apparently had it's fair share of smaller fortifications rather loosely called forts, fortresses and castles. Many built of very ephemeral materials (unless constantly maintained) such as wattle and wood. As I said earlier, fortifications came in a vast array of forms and sizes in both Europe and China.
I don't dispute that the Mongols if they had sufficient resources (both human and material) and time would have subdued Europe one way or another. But they didn't so they couldn't. The further West and South they went in Europe, the more formidable the fortifications. In part because these were the more prosperous and powerful portions of Europe.
This fortress in Croatia (far from the most major fortification in the Balkans), was a surviving rallying point for forces resisting the Mongols who experienced a sharp defeat here in 1242.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klis_Fortress
Last edited:
They are both beautiful and formidable. But most of these did not exist in the 13th C. They were built over the next 2 centuries. There were however many other sites that were similarly formidable in France, S. Germany, the Italian Peninsula and, of course, Constantinople and the major cities at least formerly associated with the Empire at this time.
The Mongols like the majority of other conquerors in history used auxiliary troops conscripted from the previously conquered peoples.
Usually all the steppe nomad troops are considered to be the "core Mongol troops" which is not exactly true especially concerning Batu Khan invasion army.
1) There were so called Mongol/Tatar horse archers and heavy cavalry shock troops from the tribes which were the first to support Chingiz Khan - these were the real core and flower of the Mongol Empire. Their martial qualities were best in the world, no doubt about it.
But these "true Mongols/Tatars" were few in number, all in all about 250 000 warriors.
Some say the western Mongol army of invasion of Juchi Ulus had 10-50 thousand of these true troops under command of Batu Khan and Subedei.
2) the conquered nomad troops out of the steppe peoples which were conquered by the Mongol Empire later. These were mostly Turkic-speaking tribes and they differed greatly in their martial quality. But as they were commandeered by the Mongol elite they tended to improve their fighting abilities greatly to resemble the true Mongols. They became part of the system.
There is no way as we now could distinguish "true Mongols" and other "newly conquered nomads" as the history was usually written by sedentary peoples for whom all the nomads were alike, the same.
3) There were troops from sedentary peoples who took part in the wars of the Mongol Empire.
How did the war machine of the Mongol Empire worked?
In ideal situation:
First the battle was opened by the conquered sedentary troops - they were the most disposable material. If they won - fine! If they were annihilated - no big deal. If these troops started to withdraw and flee - they might be murdered as cowards by the nomad troops which were wisely put behind them.
If the sedentary troops did not succeed - the newly conquered nomad troops joined the battle. The "true Mongols" (if there were some) watched and waited. And only when the nomads did not succeed as well, only then the "true Mongols/Tatars" joined the battle.
This system allowed to save the precious lives first of the true Mongols and second of the nomad horse troops. And made possible to conquer new peoples using the previously conquered peoples.
Of course there were desperate situations when even the old aging Chingiz Khan in person had to lead his guards into the midst of the battle. But preferably true Mongols are not supposed to take part in action, maybe just shoot arrows from the distance.
So this system could work just fine in Europe given enough time:
First the Russians die to fight the Germans for the Mongols. Then the Germans die to conquer Italy for the Mongol Empire. After that the Italians are the cannon fodder in the wars of the Mongols against France. And so on and so forth. On condition that the Great Khan Ughedei lives into his sixties and sends some reinforcements from time to time. No matter how hard you try to save the lives of your precious nomads and "true Mongol nomads" - their casualties are inevitable.
But in my opinion this is possible as the western advance was the priority for Ugedei. We may wonder why but the Mongols saw all the world as destined to be conquered by the Chegizzides and it did not matter too much where they should start.
Some other parts of the world might be richer but they might wait a little bit - the Mongols would come to them a little bit later.
Last edited:
Would Britain survive like Japan did? The Mongols didn't manage to conquer Japan and although there are no Kamikaze in the area you would have to be lucky to get an invasion fleet across the Channel.
True but would there be enough of the French and Flemish boats left to form a fleet? If not is the infrastructure intact enough to build one? Also the Bastard was very lucky!
More to the point: would the Mongols even be interested?
Also Britain is safe unless the Mongols implausibly established a long term presence in Europe. A debatable point if they would or could.
I think it is more absurd that all of Germany will resist better than the more richer states in the east. Germany has a possibility to fall 1 or 2 or 8 years. This totally depends on what each town/city reacts and many other factors to the Mongol invasion.
I gave a scientific way/statistical data to predict the outcome rather European bias and favoritism.
Riches =/= military prowess, or military leadership, or even effective fortifications (although you may need riches to have them, having riches does not mean you have effective fortifications).
So trying to say that because the Mongols took X square miles per year in one situation that they would do the same in another situation . . . that's not scientific.