mongolain question

[|OCS|Virus]

my question is do you think the mongols would have totaly taken over Europe, assuming they did not have to go back to pick another Kahn {i think thats the way its spelled} Personaly I do not belive they would have been able to make it to far into western Europe as they Had many hardend warrior for themselfs and although the mongolians had a very massive army I belive it lacked the edge of suits of armour and better swords. But the mogols were not without benifit of organization a very important part of any battle. I am no expert on the subject by any means, I got most of my info from discovery channel specials and a couple articles that mentioned it in passing. Anyways do you think they would have taken over completly or do you think they would have been stoped by somthing? If so WHAT? well thx hope this makes for interesting comversation.

[solypsist]

well, it's possible. one the Mongols had established the foothold in Russia (which they did), the Christian armies would have stood no chance. I looked into some reference books with just this questions and every one basically said 'the Christian armies, with their lack of real military organization would have been defeated on every occasion'. the real turning point would have come when the Mongols has conquered Italy; from there the death (or execution) of the Pope would have left Europe without any central authority to claim or enforce orthodoxy.
of course, things would have come to an end, they always do. but the conquest and ruin of Europe at that time (no burgeouse class, no printing press, no Dutch revolt, no democratic revolutions, no Industrial Revolution, no Paris (the intellectual center of Europe during the High Middle Ages, etc. etc.) means things would still be as bleak for us today as they were during the post-Roman Empire.

[-Isapostolos-]

Like every nomad power, Mongols relied on their cavalry and massive armies. These armies needed big plains of grass to keep them supported, otherwise the horses woouldn't keep going. Since every mongol warriro had several horses, one needed big plains. On the steppes of Russia, it is no problem to find this kind of supply of grass. But in Europe, there are no steps, beside the Hungarian plain.

Europe was to dense with trees and mountains to make it suitable to a nomad power conquest. Even though western armies were crap, and lacked any central authority, I doubt Mongols would have come as far as Paris, simply because it couldn't be done, without the nomad power changing itself into the regular settled power.

[magnatz]

Also, it is highly unlikely that the Pope would have waited for them in Rome.

[Ironside]

A question, how well fortified was Europe at this time?

The worlds best cavalry (at the time) is not well suited to take castles, but more suited to die in deceases outside the walls. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Like every nomad power, Mongols relied on their cavalry and massive armies.
The funny thing is, the total of Mongol soldiers never surpassed 150 000 men in ALL of the Empire. Very few, for such an ENORMOUS Empire, weren't they? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

Their advantage weren't MASSIVE armies. The Mongols always fought OUTNUMBERED http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

Their advantage were Strategy, Tactics, Communications, Logistics and Terrorizing Fame. I'll explain:

-Strategy: they extensivelly used spies in enemy territory before a preparation for an invasion. They divided their armies with the objective to surround the enemy and cut their supply route.

-Tactics: they skimished the enemy and retreated. This was used to lure it to attack them. They used smoke screens, traps and ambushes to separate and disorganize the various sections of the enemy army. Then they striked at specific vulnerable points.

-Communications: Their armies kept in communication with one another, undreds of miles apart, through the use of horse-couriers, to coordinate their advance and attack. They always knew the location of enemy armies, through the use of small & fast scout forces.

-Logistics: One of the reasons why everyone thinks they outnumbered their enemies, was the fact that each army carried with it, ALL that was needed for their survival: Their houses, their wifes, their children, their cattle, their reserve horses, their food, etc. Their supply routes couldn't be cut, because they were within the army itself

-Terrorizing fame: they based much of their Strategy and Tactics in deception. Another reason that everyone thinks they were numberless is: they lured the enemy into thinking their armies to be much greater than they really were. While approaching their enemies, they tied big wide branches of trees to ALL their horses and cattle, to lift ENORMOUS amounts of dust. Since they separated their armies, the enemy would see MASSIVE dust clouds in EVERY direction. This deception would disenheart any soldier. This one and many other deceptive tactics were used. So, the enemy believed to fight Mongols that were: "more numerous than ants or locusts... ...the sand of the desert or drops of rain" (Al-a-Din Ata Malik Juvaini, in History of the World Conqueror).




Quote[/b] ]The worlds best cavalry (at the time) is not well suited to take castles, but more suited to die in deceases outside the walls.
You forget that they conquered the various Chinese Empires and various Islamic Sultanates

In case you forgot, the Chinese Empires and Islamic States possessed MASSIVE fortifications, greater than ANY in Europe and that didn't deterred them

They were fast learners and adaptable. By the time the Golden Horde reached Europe, they were Masters in Siege Warfare.




Quote[/b] ]Europe was to dense with trees and mountains to make it suitable to a nomad power conquest. Even though western armies were crap, and lacked any central authority, I doubt Mongols would have come as far as Paris, simply because it couldn't be done, without the nomad power changing itself into the regular settled power.
You forget they were the only army EVER to conquer Russia in mid-winter They used the frozen rivers to travel across the valeys and mountains.

Also, in Jebe and Subedei's raid across Europe in 1221-1224, they had to pass through the Caucassus Mountains. No mean achievement They destroyed 2 enemy armies in Georgia, passed the mountains and anihilated a coalition of Turkik tribes on the Russian steppe. The Russian principalities, alarmed, assembled an 80 000 men army and challenged the 20 000 Mongols in the Kalka river. The rest, as is known, is History... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

They would find a way and if they REALLY wanted, ALL of Europe would fall. In their time, if well led, they were unsurpassable...

[The Wizard]

Everything that Aymar said, plus more:

The problem of the terrain is nonexistant. The Mongols conquered the large kingdom of Tibet, which was very mountainous if you know your geography. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Why didn't they conquer Southeastern Asia and India, while they easily could've? The reason is the climate. Hot, sticky and humid, those lands were not the right lands for the horses of the Mongols. Realising that fact, they bypassed these.

In Europe, the climate was just right for the Mongols. Added to that is the far greater mobility of the Mongolian army. While knights were accustomed to sieges and battles where they would flank and duke it out in the melée, Mongols employed tactics of ambush and skirmish. After their famed horse archers and foot archers were done with barraging the enemy while these were unable to catch them, only tiring themselves out by trying to, the Mongol heavy cavalry came to finish the weakened formations of their enemy, on breaking point. Then, they rode them down.

And sieges were not much of a problem. The mongols had the expert craftmanship of the Chinese to make these, and they themselves knew very well how to use them and where to place them. Kiev was a great city and quite the fortress, but the Mongols annihalated it and massacred its inhabitants.

Now staying power... that's a whole other thing. The Mongols would have to have done the same as the Magyars, and settled, casting their horses aside and becoming like the Hungarians.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Loki]

(Loki Bows)

Greetings all

If any of you are interested in this subject and would like a better feel for this topic, please read "The March of the Barbarians" by Charles Lamb.

Lamb is often pooh poo'ed by the serious historians because of his writing style which is quite romantic. His books on the middle ages read like thriller novels. He does do serious research and quotes as many contemporary primary sources as anyone else.... He just kicks it up a notch as it were.

This book is fresh in my mind because I just finished reading it recently.

Make no mistake whatsoever. If the mongols had a mind to there was nothing the christian monarchs could have done to stop them. It would have taken a force of nature, (or an act of God) Like in Japan to stop them.

They had better siege engines and tactics than anyone in europe because of thier Chinese?Sung slaves/conscripts.

Christian armor would not stop mongol AP arrows (as was proven in Poland and Hungary). Heavy armor was simply a detriment as the mongols would never close to hand to hand until the knights were exhausted/wounded or both. They had absolutely no notion of anything like chivalry. In fact thier over riding concern was to keep mongol casualties to a minimum.

They were also masters of stratagey in the sense that they keenly understood ALL the little petty feuds and rivalries between the christian kings. They would have divided and slaughtered the various factions piecmeal.

A last word. As was proven in the crusades to the dismay of western chivalry, the ultimate weapon of the day was NOT the armored knight, it was the horse archer. The mongols were the Alpha horse archers. It wouldn't even have been close.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]The worlds best cavalry (at the time) is not well suited to take castles, but more suited to die in deceases outside the walls.

You forget that they conquered the various Chinese Empires and various Islamic Sultanates

In case you forgot, the Chinese Empires and Islamic States possessed MASSIVE fortifications, greater than ANY in Europe and that didn't deterred them

They were fast learners and adaptable. By the time the Golden Horde reached Europe, they were Masters in Siege Warfare.


Actually I didn't forget that. The problem is that every time you're going to take a castle you'll need to build siege engines and then you'll need to bombard the castle enough to storm it, witch is always bloody and your advantage on horseback is nullified. Or you could move your siege engines with you and lose your speed witch was extremely inportant for the mongol armies. And you can't guard the castle for a long time with a big force after you slaughtered the sorrounding population (because the castle didn't surrender), and therefore lacking food supplies. And deseases would start to kill them of. This problem could be nullified somewhat with mercs but to much mercs can be bribed...

One big castle is easy with good siege weapons, 10 smaller ones is harder. (not again) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

And time is your enemy, soon the enemy will adopt tactics that are efficient against you. For example to actually deploy units in forests would make the mongol main tactics weaker. I haven't seen any sources of this but don't armies usually get deployed on open ground and forests seems to be "impassable" terrain for most commanders. I don't recall any larger battles fought inside a dense forest.

[The Wizard]

The Mongols breached the Great Wall of China. I mean, 'nuff said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Look, that might have been so, but the Mongols were quite effective at sieging. Should the siege have failed, the Mongols would have simply left, in the hope that the defenders would sally out of their fortifications. Then, they would slaughter them. If not all died and some escaped to the castle again... well, repeat until satisfaction

By the time the enemy (stubborn, arrogant knights that will get swamped by the Mongols in no time) would have adopted to the Mongols, the Mongols would hold all of Europe.

There is no denying that the Mongols were the greatest military machine of their time, and they were very determined. They would have stopped at nothing to destroy the European kingdoms, for they were in their way, as they say. Genghis was as determined as Attila, and he didn't stop at anything to try and destroy the Roman Empire either.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]The Mongols breached the Great Wall of China. I mean, 'nuff said

Look, that might have been so, but the Mongols were quite effective at sieging. Should the siege have failed, the Mongols would have simply left, in the hope that the defenders would sally out of their fortifications. Then, they would slaughter them. If not all died and some escaped to the castle again... well, repeat until satisfaction

By the time the enemy (stubborn, arrogant knights that will get swamped by the Mongols in no time) would have adopted to the Mongols, the Mongols would hold all of Europe.

There is no denying that the Mongols were the greatest military machine of their time, and they were very determined. They would have stopped at nothing to destroy the European kingdoms, for they were in their way, as they say. Genghis was as determined as Attila, and he didn't stop at anything to try and destroy the Roman Empire either.

Indeed, my friend, indeed... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Very well put. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]The Mongols breached the Great Wall of China. I mean, 'nuff said


Chinese soldier
Aaaahhh there's 50000 mongols comming towards the wall
Chinese commander
No problem we're 50 men holding this section of the wall. Sly them all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Yes the Mongols could conquer most of Europe ( by beating most of the field armies within a few years or shorter), but could they actually hold it and not making it to a gigantic raid?


Citera[/b] ]Genghis was as determined as Attila, and he didn't stop at anything to try and destroy the Roman Empire either.
The same Attila that first tried to take East Rome, changed his mind, tried to take West Rome and was stopped by the Pope outside Rome? He was very determined http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Edit: Genghis never tried to take Europe, what are you talking about http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
His son did http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[The Wizard]

No, what I meant was: Atilla would've stopped at nothing to conquer Rome. He failed, barely, and died not long thereafter.

And we're talking about: would the Mongols have conquered Europe? I sincerely doubt they could've pulled the same trick on Europe that they pulled on China. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Dillinger]

The Mongols would've encountered the same problem that Alexander did, that is, they would have been spread wayyyy to thin to effectively govern Europe. It would have become nothing but a big time bomb for the Mongols.

[The Wizard]

Do not forget that the Mongols had a huge empire that lasted as one until the death of Kublai Khan, the last Khakhan of the Mongols.

Holegu's Il-Khanate governed a very large empire, and did that excellently. Same for the Chaghandai Khanate. Both these empires were huge, at least twice the size of the largest empire of Europe in that age, the Holy Roman Empire, and were governed very effectively. The same thing was true for the Golden Horde, or Kipchak Khanate after the death of their last, heirless Khan.

The Mongols brought as much prosperity as they could to the regions they governed, after they had conquered them. They may have laid waste to hundreds of cities, slaughtered hundreds of thousands, but none can deny that the region prospered after it.

The Golden Horde would not have been too thinly spread to control Europe. They would govern an empire not much larger than the largest of the Khanates that formed the complete Mongol Empire, next to the Khakhan's own empire: the Il-Khanate.

It is only very ironical and a quirk of history that the Mongol Empire and its sub-empires dissolved right after the end of their golden age.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Dillinger]

I suppose you could argue this, but the Mongols were totally foreign, pagan, of a totally different and unseen race, among other oddities. The vast majority of Europeans would have probably had a very hard time excepting their mastership. They probably would have just made them pay tribute like the Russians, and even they rebelled eventually.

[|OCS|Virus]

If anyone would care to know the truth about the great wall, it was never very hard to breach the mongols did it on a regular basis. there were only a handfull of men and the mongols took it very easily, because they would focus hundreds of men on one point at a time charge it and I belive they used latter they made on the site to scale the wall and just go over it. if they even did go over it sometimes they would just ride untill they hit a point they had not built at yet. The materials the chinese used to build the wall were poor at best they simply used whatever materials were at hand. as opposed to a castle which was normaly made out of stone, and heavily manned. taking over the great wall was no hard task. I realize the chinese had smoke signals to signal other people but even if they got the signals off they would only be sent to another hand full of peopel against a large mongolian army. then they would have probly moved on by that time anyways.

[Leet Eriksson]

The wall was never really meant to be defensive but more of an advanced warning wall than a defensive one...

[71-hour Ahmed]

Its a bit far from China to Europe - no one ever says whether the golden horde crossed russia with auxilary armies so talking about Chinese siege troops is a bit presumptous - they probably couldn't invade russia in winter with the supply needs and slow motion of auxilary armies like that. Plus China was taken by a different mongol group than the one that invaded Europe.

Ultimately their fate would be absorption anyway, but its possible they could win over Europe. Europe would have recovered but would be very different.

[spmetla]

The Great Wall's greatest purpose was that it deterred the smaller raids and it took away the Mongol's horses unless they lost a gatehouse or something.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 26 2004,02:05)]Its a bit far from China to Europe - no one ever says whether the golden horde crossed russia with auxilary armies so talking about Chinese siege troops is a bit presumptous - they probably couldn't invade russia in winter with the supply needs and slow motion of auxilary armies like that. Plus China was taken by a different mongol group than the one that invaded Europe.

Ultimately their fate would be absorption anyway, but its possible they could win over Europe. Europe would have recovered but would be very different.
Actually, the Mongols were the only foreign army ever to conquer Russian lands in winter. They used the great frozen rivers, such as the Dnjepr, the Wolga and the Kalka to cross rivers far quicker than nromally would be possible.

I am not sure if the siege engines that the Mongols used in the siege of Kyiv were operated by Chinese craftsmen, but we all know that the Mongols learnt their siegecraft from the Chinese. Within no-time they mastered their use, and put this to great effect in great sieges, such as Kyiv and Baghdad.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[|OCS|Virus]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Jan. 26 2004,05:27)]but we all know that the Mongols learnt their siegecraft from the Chinese.
I must have missed that lesson, I didnt know they had seige engines of any kind because they would have slown down... huh interesting. What kind did they have exactly?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]I am not sure if the siege engines that the Mongols used in the siege of Kyiv were operated by Chinese craftsmen, but we all know that the Mongols learnt their siegecraft from the Chinese. Within no-time they mastered their use, and put this to great effect in great sieges, such as Kyiv and Baghdad.
I believe that by time of Kiev, they were Mongol operated.




Quote[/b] ]I must have missed that lesson, I didnt know they had seige engines of any kind because they would have slown down... huh interesting. What kind did they have exactly?
Mangonels. They weren't slowed down. As I told you before, they also carried their houses with them. They had enough horses to carry the siege engines disassembled. And if they wanted more firepower, in some sieges, they could buid them on site.

[Leet Eriksson]

on the seige of baghdad the mongols brought chinese wall scalers and chinese cannons to take care of the walls.Actually it was Hulegus plan from the begining to import the cannon.

Ironically when the mongols seiged chinese cities the mongols used muslim seige weapons known to the chinese as "Hui Hui Poi" or Muslim Cannon,it was actually the terbuchet and not really a cannon in the traditional sense.

[Spino]

Not to take anything away from the Mongols but at the height of their conquests they really were stretched to their limit. How do you expect to run let alone maintain such a vast empire using a tribal system of government? Anyway, it's a pity there were no great generals available to these Western Asiatic or European powers who could rise and effectively meet the Mongolian challenge. Thanks to inept leadership the Kwarazmiam army and people were doomed from the outset. The same went for the Sultanate of Bagdhad. The Kievans and their cousins to the north were too sharply divided amongst minor principalities to offer any serious resistance to Mongols. It wasn't until the Mamluks, well led and of extraordinary training and discipline, showed the world what would happen when the Mongols ran into an opponent who actually had its act together.

Although I am not one to dabble with time travel I believe the world would have been better off without the Mongol conquests. Several large, advanced civilizations were wiped from the face of the earth thanks to the Mongols. Who knows how history would have been written had those vanquished Asiatic civilizations been able to continue their development? Impressive as they were in conquering much of Eurasia the Mongols built nothing and left no legacy behind except one of conquest and military innovation (regarding both tactis and technology). While it may be true that the Mongols re-opened the trade routes to the east this development did not last and they possessed nothing other than the threat of extraordinarily violent retribution to keep them open. No advances in administration, government, engineering, mathematics, etc., etc. Regarding the other great empire builders of the ancient and medieval world the Arabs, Byzantines, Greeks, Chinese, Ottoman Turks, Persians & Romans, each despite their own history of brutal conquest, left an indelible and positive influence on the world everywhere they went, the Mongols and similar peoples (Tatars & Huns) did not.

In my opinion the only positive thing about the Mongols was that they gave the civilized world a swift Darwinian kick in its complacent ass. As far as motivation is concerned there's nothing like the fear and threat of annihilation at the hands of an underestimated and uncivilized foe to see what you're really made of.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Although I am not one to dabble with time travel I believe the world would have been better off without the Mongol conquests. Several large, advanced civilizations were wiped from the face of the earth thanks to the Mongols. Who knows how history would have been written had those vanquished Asiatic civilizations been able to continue their development? Impressive as they were in conquering much of Eurasia the Mongols built nothing and left no legacy behind except one of conquest and military innovation (regarding both tactis and technology). While it may be true that the Mongols re-opened the trade routes to the east this development did not last and they possessed nothing other than the threat of extraordinarily violent retribution to keep them open. No advances in administration, government, engineering, mathematics, etc., etc. Regarding the other great empire builders of the ancient and medieval world the Arabs, Byzantines, Greeks, Chinese, Ottoman Turks, Persians & Romans, each despite their own history of brutal conquest, left an indelible and positive influence on the world everywhere they went, the Mongols and similar peoples (Tatars & Huns) did not.

Sorry, but I don't agree.

The trade routes were for the first time open from one side to the other of the Eurasian continent. All controled and protected by the Mongols.

The Mongols were absorved by the cultures that they conquered. Their dinasties soon began the processes of rebuilding.

In fact, Khublai Khan is considered in Chinese History as a very enlightened and benevolent ruler. He modernized agriculture and field irrigation. He created an Agricultural ministy to distribute seeds and animals to farmers. He was the one responsible for the enlargement of the Grand Canal. He linked several cities (Daidu, Beijing, Hangzhou, etc...).

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]The trade routes were for the first time open from one side to the other of the Eurasian continent. All controled and protected by the Mongols.

That is simply not true. As far as overland trade routes are concerned the 'Silk Road' linking China with Central and Western Asia had been around for more than 1,000 years before the Mongols began their conquest of the continent Sometime during the late 1st century B.C. (and no thanks to the meddlesome Parthians) the trade routes linking the Roman Empire with the Far East were open for business. Wealthy Roman women wore garments made of silk brought all the way from China

This website has a nice little timeline. Unfortunately the links within the timeline don't work... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/chrono.shtml

A great little interactive map that shows both the overland and sea routes linking the east and west as well as the spread of paper usage:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites....s.html# (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072424354/student_view0/chapter12/interactive_maps.html#)

Brief history of the silk industry and the trade routes that followed:

http://www.unrv.com/economy/silk.php


Quote[/b] ]The Mongols were absorved by the cultures that they conquered. Their dinasties soon began the processes of rebuilding.

In fact, Khublai Khan is considered in Chinese History as a very enlightened and benevolent ruler. He modernized agriculture and field irrigation. He created an Agricultural ministy to distribute seeds and animals to farmers. He was the one responsible for the enlargement of the Grand Canal. He linked several cities (Daidu, Beijing, Hangzhou, etc...).

True but then the very fact that the Mongols were absorbed by the civilized peoples they conquered (those fortunate enough to not be massacred or enslaved) makes one question what they brought to the table other than their ability to wage war, plunder, rape and kill. Kublai Khan may have been a great and wise ruler but culturally speaking he was Chinese and not a true Mongol the likes of Genghis or Timur. It's rather silly to say a people like the Chinese could not have done without him Who knows how much farther Chinese civilization would have progressed had the Mongols not ravaged it in the first place?

Personally I view the Mongols in the same light as other militaristic peoples like the Spartans or the Vikings. When viewed for what they were they were impressive manifestations of martial ability and intellect, albeit applied in a very limited field (I'll gladly give the Vikings credit for also being extraordinary shipwrights and explorers). There were times when the existence of these peoples actually served the good of all (i.e. the Spartans were instrumental in saving western civilization) but if your greatest contribution to the world is conquest, plunder and mass murder then the world is better off without you.

[kiwitt]

Aymar de Bois Mauri :

Your post sounds like the Mongols were scholars of Sun Tzui

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]That is simply not true. As far as overland trade routes are concerned the 'Silk Road' linking China with Central and Western Asia had been around for more than 1,000 years before the Mongols began their conquest of the continent Sometime during the late 1st century B.C. (and no thanks to the meddlesome Parthians) the trade routes linking the Roman Empire with the Far East were open for business. Wealthy Roman women wore garments made of silk brought all the way from China
I knew that the silk road had been a reality since the 1 century BC.

I explained myself poorly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

What I meant was that for the 1st time the Silk Road was controled by an unique empire or nation.




Quote[/b] ]True but then the very fact that the Mongols were absorbed by the civilized peoples they conquered (those fortunate enough to not be massacred or enslaved) makes one question what they brought to the table other than their ability to wage war, plunder, rape and kill. Kublai Khan may have been a great and wise ruler but culturally speaking he was Chinese and not a true Mongol the likes of Genghis or Timur.
You also seem to forget the fact that Timur Lenk wasn't Mongol, but of Turkish ascendency. He claimed to be of Mongol ascendency to justify his claims to power.




Quote[/b] ] It's rather silly to say a people like the Chinese could not have done without him Who knows how much farther Chinese civilization would have progressed had the Mongols not ravaged it in the first place?
Because, before the Mongols defeated them, they were divided in several kingdoms that fought with each other. The Mongols unified China for 200 years. After them, the Chinese were again convinced of the advantages of a unification.




Quote[/b] ]but if your greatest contribution to the world is conquest, plunder and mass murder then the world is better off without you.
I think that was rather unnecessary, don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

I never said them to be a benevolent force http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

What I said was that they weren't the Devil in desguise, as well as the cultures they anihilated weren't Angels on Earth.




Quote[/b] ]Aymar de Bois Mauri :

Your post sounds like the Mongols were scholars of Sun Tzui
I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[Ironside]

But I don't think that the 35 million Chinese peasants that was slaughtered 1311-1340 liked what the mongols did for their country. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Jan. 26 2004,18:19)]Not to take anything away from the Mongols but at the height of their conquests they really were stretched to their limit. How do you expect to run let alone maintain such a vast empire using a tribal system of government? Anyway, it's a pity there were no great generals available to these Western Asiatic or European powers who could rise and effectively meet the Mongolian challenge. Thanks to inept leadership the Kwarazmiam army and people were doomed from the outset. The same went for the Sultanate of Bagdhad. The Kievans and their cousins to the north were too sharply divided amongst minor principalities to offer any serious resistance to Mongols. It wasn't until the Mamluks, well led and of extraordinary training and discipline, showed the world what would happen when the Mongols ran into an opponent who actually had its act together.

Although I am not one to dabble with time travel I believe the world would have been better off without the Mongol conquests. Several large, advanced civilizations were wiped from the face of the earth thanks to the Mongols. Who knows how history would have been written had those vanquished Asiatic civilizations been able to continue their development? Impressive as they were in conquering much of Eurasia the Mongols built nothing and left no legacy behind except one of conquest and military innovation (regarding both tactis and technology). While it may be true that the Mongols re-opened the trade routes to the east this development did not last and they possessed nothing other than the threat of extraordinarily violent retribution to keep them open. No advances in administration, government, engineering, mathematics, etc., etc. Regarding the other great empire builders of the ancient and medieval world the Arabs, Byzantines, Greeks, Chinese, Ottoman Turks, Persians & Romans, each despite their own history of brutal conquest, left an indelible and positive influence on the world everywhere they went, the Mongols and similar peoples (Tatars & Huns) did not.

In my opinion the only positive thing about the Mongols was that they gave the civilized world a swift Darwinian kick in its complacent ass. As far as motivation is concerned there's nothing like the fear and threat of annihilation at the hands of an underestimated and uncivilized foe to see what you're really made of.
I'm sorry, but I have to object to this comment.

After Chingis Khan had gained control over all the Mongolian tribes (in fact not all Mongol, but rather mainly Turkic and Mongol-Tungusic), he reformed the administration of his government to a point far past the level of advance of the previous empires of steppe peoples. This form of government proved extremely effective, and worked out very well in all Mongol sub-khanates. There was no such thing as a 'tribal government' after Chingis Khan became Khan of the Mongols.

Chingis Khan passed through all kinds of laws and structures in the Khuriltai on the Onon river. This allowed for a military superstructure in the Mongol Empire he controlled thusfar that allowed for an extremely effective way of levying troops and governing the empire.

While at first content to raid the countryside, take plunder, fight an indigenous army and emerge victorious with a promise for tribute, the Mongol raids quickly turned into conquest, something that the previous empires of steppe people had never achieved (Gokturk, Turgic, Kara-Khitai)

The Mamluks did not win any battle and were on the very verge of being annihalated as so many kingdoms before them by the Mongols under Holegu. Yet he withdrew not long after starting his campaign into the Levant, to capture Baghdad, leaving a minor force under one of his generals. The Mamluks, expecting Hulegu's full fury, prepared a much larger force and easily defeated them. Hulegu went on and founded the Il-Khanate.

The Mongol Empire was by no means overstretched. it was governed by 'viceroys', or 'normal' Khans, under the undisputed rule of the Great Khan, or Khakhan ("Khan of Khans"). It had a long way to go before getting overstretched, and as stated by CA in MTW itself, it is only a quirk of history and a massive stroke of luck that Ogadai Khan died and the Golden Horde had to retreat to choose a new Khan.

The downfall of most Mongol Khanates came from two things: first, the Great Khan based in Karakorum lost interest for the rest of the Empire and centered around the Yuan empire, based in Ta-tu (Beijing). This happened when Kubilai Khan, based in Ta-tu, defeated Ariq-Boke, based in Karakorum, the ancient capital in a civil war over the title of Great Khan. Second, every Khanate fell right after their golden age of great economical prosperity and rebuilding of destroyed cities, due to heirless khans dying and the line coming to an end without a clear successor.

It is true that no great techonological advancements were made under the Mongols, but what can you expect in just over a century? It is more than amazing that the regions they ruled prospered so much.

About the silk road: it was interrupted during the wars between the Sassanid Empire and 'the Empire' (the Byzantines), and with the Arab invasions and the subsequent wars between the Ummayad caliphate and the Byzantines, it did not really get restored. Under the Mongol Empire, one empire, it was indirectly restored.

An excerpt from an article about the Mongol Empire:

"One may see the Mongol Empire as a gigantic political force, bringing almost the entire continent of Asia under the control of one Great Khan. The Mongol government was a superior one, and thus the whole continent was interconnected. During the Mongol Empire, one was guaranteed safety in travel throughout the entire empire. Thus, the Empire created a huge economical boom and a great exchange of culture and knowledge throughout the entire world. As a result of the Mongols, the Silk Road was reopened and the route from Europe to Asia was no longer thought to be impassable. A great deal of knowledge reached Europe, including art, science, and gunpowder; which greatly contributed in bringing Western Europe out of the dark ages. Likewise, in Asia, we saw an exchange of ideas between Persia and China."

Edit :: Kubilai Khan was most certainly not a Chinese man. He was a genuine Mongol. However, he did adopt the Chinese lifestyle and learned to speak Chinese. He was the last Khakhan of the Mongols, his successors only took the title of Yuan Emperor.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Wise and correct words, Lord Wizzy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

I'm glad you had the patiente to explain it. I hadn't... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin.gif

[magnatz]

The mongols surely had the potential to invade part of Europe. I doubt that they would have conquered it all, because of logistic and strategic issues (some regions just do not produce enough forage for a huge cavalry army, invading countries where *all* cities are fortified is time expensive, and some places such as Italy just can't be held without a navy).

However I wonder if, after invading all or part of Europe, the Mongols would have adapted to the Western culture as they did with the Chinese... then they would have established christian Khanates at least in Italy and Germany, and at that point they would have probably taken an interest in the crusades... this could make for a nice alternative history http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[The Wizard]

Thank you, Prince Aymar. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

It is indeed a pity that fanciful speculation is all that remains after one goes more than a couple of years after an altered event in history. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shifty.gif



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]It is indeed a pity that fanciful speculation is all that remains after one goes more than a couple of years after an altered event in history.
Yeap, I agree. That's generally the case... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad3.gif

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Jan. 27 2004,22:33)]It is indeed a pity that fanciful speculation is all that remains after one goes more than a couple of years after an altered event in history.
I like that one. Do you mind if I copy it to my philosophy book?

[The Wizard]

Fine with me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Orda Khan]

Some good points being made in this thread, not all factual, but good reading all the same. I have studied the Mongol Empire and it's seperate Khanates, searching for answers to questions that most of the contempory writings do not really provide. Some recently published material can be most misleading with its fanciful claims ( it would seem facts can change, depending on the source ) and the Russian Chronicles have their fair share of sympathetic statistics. Many overwhelming defeats are explained by these sources as the Christian armies being totally outnumbered. One account of Liegnitz tells how the Mongols outnumbered poor Henry the Pious five to one. A total of TWO tumens entered Poland. People think of Tumen as meaning 10,000 men...In actual fact this could be as few as 6,000 men, due to death,injury etc. One must not take historical writings as absolute truth for the very fact of 'face saving' that clouds the real story. Always get all the information available before drawing a conclusion, which more often is somewhere between the two extremes. One thing I would say with a fair amount of certainty is that Europe and Egypt too for that matter, could have been conquered. However, the over riding factor that most authors simply mention as an aside, is that after the death of Chingis Qa'an his heirs began the internecine conflicts that were the main reason for the collapse of the Empire as such.

Though Ogedei had been nominated as successor, he was not enthroned for two years. During this time Tolui, the youngest brother, ruled as regent. His position as youngest and heir to the 'hearthfire' brought with it many advantages. One such advantage was a huge 111,000 army that came with the homelands. This huge army and the fact that of the remaining Princes, Tolui was the finest commander, strengthened his claim to the throne.
During the Russian campaign, Ogedei's son Guyuk and Chagatai's grandson Buri, two of ten Royal Princes present, argued bitterly with Batu. It was all over Batu drinking first at a celebratary feast...Or was it just pure jealousy?
Although Orda was Batu's older brother, he already had his own 'ulus', that of his father, Jochi. The campaign was to secure for Batu an ulus of his own,," the land farthest west that Mongol hooves have trodden " There is no justification to claims that Batu had done anything untoward, he was ( disregarding Orda ) the eldest and head of the campaign.
Guyuk eventually became Qa'an, but died after only two years of rule, not enough time to organise a solution to the problem that was Batu in the west, for he had failed to attend and swear allegiance as was customary.
There followed a purging of the Chagadeid and Ogedeid houses organised by a vengeful Batu and his close friend Mangku ( son of Tolui ) Many Princes and Commanders were exiled or executed and the appanages of Ogedei and Chagadei were distributed among more 'worthy' Princes.
On Mangku's death there followed a civil war with supporters for Qubilai and Ariq Buka, watchful of their borders. From this point on ( IMO I hasten to add ) I would definitely not consider the Mongol Empire to be 'united'. There were constant border wars, Qaidu ( Ogedei's grandson ) set up an Independant State and was more than just a thorn in Qubilai's side. As the Qa'an, it is surprising to find how powerless Qubilai was at times.
I read some posts in these forums about the battle of Ain Jalut and the success of the Organised Mamluk Army Where it must be said that the Mamluks did indeed enjoy some victories over the Mongol armies, maybe we should be saying 'Ilkhanate armies' The very fact that the Ilkhanate were constantly raided and attacked by the forces of the Chagadeid Princes and Qaidu, not to mention the Golden Horde in the west, means we can dispense with the term 'Mongol'
This trend did not change for the rest of Mongol domination, as each new forgotten descendant rose to power and staked his claim on his birthright, the Mongol Empire was weakened, economy in these lands that suffered year after year of conflict struggled and tax exemption was popular.
The Golden Horde lost its seige engineers and the trebuchets and catapults when the Imperial Tumens returned to Mongolia and although they were rich and powerful, they simply did not have the kind of forces necessary to undertake an invasion of Europe and always the threat of attack from the Ilkhanate, White Horde, or the Chagadeid/Ogedeid claimants.
I will conclude by suggesting that the Mongol Empire ended when Qubilai moved his Capital to China, the Mongol homelands, no longer profiting from the wealth that now made its way to China, became once more a cold place inhabited by those who looked enviously at the wealth of the Chinese.

.......Orda

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

The greatness of an insightfull explanation, Great Khan http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif



Quote[/b] ]is that after the death of Chingis Qa'an his heirs began the internecine conflicts that were the main reason for the collapse of the Empire as such.
Yes, right on the target http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

That was really the main reason for the Empire to fall apart.

[The Wizard]

Yes, indeed, I was trying to make that clear. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz

[Orda Khan]

In a case of true irony, the Mamluks grew from slave armies. They were the remnants of many Cuman prisoners, the supply of which was carried out regularly through Constantinople by the Golden Horde, who became a very handy ally for the Egyptian Sultans. Would Baybars have been quite so flamboyantly daring without the Horde to cover his flank? I doubt it, every time the Ilkhanate mobilised more than a small garrison, the Mamluks would withdraw. What halted further expansion here and into Europe also was the fact that they were forever watching their backs. When Mongol armies returned to Europe, not only did they lack the seige craft and engineers but also the drive and determination of old. The people of Poland, behind their walls, breathed easier as these 'Tatars' wrought havoc but eventually turned. The storm had blown itself out.

.......Orda

[Crimson Castle]

All this talk about the Mongolians make them seem like supermen.

Wait a second - consider the facts - the Mongol army numbered what 200,000? iirc.

This army is supposed to conquer the whole of Europe as well as maintain a military presence in Asia and the Middle East? That's a huge land mass to cover - even with the redoubtable Mongolian pony.

I think you're asking a bit much from them don't you think?
Sure they could try - and hell they might even have made it to the North Sea.

[Orda Khan]

Batu crossed the Volga with around 120,000 men, however the campaign in China was still on going. Each of the Chingisid Princes had his own appanage, army, land etc. These 'Mongol' armies contained soldiers from conquered areas also, so they actually started their Empire building as an amalgum of peoples. Naimans, Qeraits, Merkids, Tatars and the various other Turcik steppe nations swelled the Mongol ranks. In China there would be an endless supply of conscripts, as used by Qubilai during his many battles ( one reason he successfully contested for the title of Qa'an )
During the first stage of the drive west, the Qipchaq, Alan and Circassian prisoners they had taken almost outnumbered them. Most were sold, many were conscripted. Incuding Batu, there were ten Chingisid Princes in the Russian Invasion army, each with his retinue of men, plus Tamma troops. These are the Tumens that returned to Qaraqorum.
The Tamma system was used again when Hulegu was charged with task of conquering the middle east and his army of around 300,000 was the largest Mongol army ever mobilised. Through the Tamma system it contained Tumens from Berke's Golden Horde [ it was not actually known as this and was more commonly called the Khanate of Qipchaq. It was much later when Toqtamish of the White Horde defeated them and united both Khanates into what the Russians called the Golden Horde...Blue/White are references used to depict the geographical locations ( the Mongols used colours to refer to the points of the compass...Blue = west ) therefore the White Horde would simply have been known as the 'Ulus of Orda' ] Tumens and two Princes of the White Horde, those of the united Chagadaid Princes plus the Tumens from China. Mongol politics was very fickle and there was almost constant in-fighting and changing allegiances, so Hulegu's Heirs found themselves under threat from these Tumens that had previously been fighting alongside them.

I have always argued ( with no disrespect intended ) that dilution through conscription is an important factor when considering the subsequent loss of military prowess among Mongol armies. The Mongols actually became a minority in their armies, this was innevitable considering the size of their Empire.

......Orda

[LestaT]

I remembered reading something about a world without europe, where alternative history was re created that Mongol invasion never stop at Danube (?) and Europe has been swept by Black Death (?)

Anyone has read it ?

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 10 2004,06:28)]All this talk about the Mongolians make them seem like supermen.

Wait a second - consider the facts - the Mongol army numbered what 200,000? iirc.

This army is supposed to conquer the whole of Europe as well as maintain a military presence in Asia and the Middle East? That's a huge land mass to cover - even with the redoubtable Mongolian pony.

I think you're asking a bit much from them don't you think?
Sure they could try - and hell they might even have made it to the North Sea.
I think you are talking about GH? The whole mongol army wasn't just 200,000 men.

[Orda Khan]

Well I think many are thinking of the Golden Horde but the original question was more a case of had Ogedei not died. The term Golden Horde is really only a loose reference that only actually came into use after Toqtamish of the White Horde defeated the Golden Horde ( Blue Horde ) and united the two. The colours have their geographical references but were not terms used by the Mongols regarding these Ulus's.

I think we can safely assume that had Ogedei not died there would have been reinforcements on their way to the Carpathian basin and Europe would have fallen within 18 years....just as Subedei had determined

......Orda

[ah_dut]

I'm not too sure about the 18 years bit. At least not concerning England, scotland and wales. but otherwise i agree

[Orda Khan]

Well Subedei predicted that the campaign ( including Russia ) would take 18 years and yes I suppose he meant mainland Europe. The British Isles would possibly remain untouched, though isolation would probably lead to tribute being paid, if only to allow trade. On the other hand an invasion was not out of the question when one considers the fresh European conscripts

......Orda

[hrvojej]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Jan. 26 2004,21:38)]Personally I view the Mongols in the same light as other militaristic peoples like the Spartans or the Vikings. When viewed for what they were they were impressive manifestations of martial ability and intellect, albeit applied in a very limited field (I'll gladly give the Vikings credit for also being extraordinary shipwrights and explorers). There were times when the existence of these peoples actually served the good of all (i.e. the Spartans were instrumental in saving western civilization) but if your greatest contribution to the world is conquest, plunder and mass murder then the world is better off without you.
Well said.

[Orda Khan]

I am quite sure that, had they possessed the ability to do so, the Crusades would have eradicated Moslems with equal fervour

......Orda

[RollingWave]

From my view... it was technically possible for the mongols to conquer all of europe... but so many things could go wrong (as it did) that would prevent them from doing so....

I will explain some of the things on the chinese side of the mongol invasion....(as song/yuan history is probably one of my strongest point in history)


Quote[/b] ]In fact, Khublai Khan is considered in Chinese History as a very enlightened and benevolent ruler. He modernized agriculture and field irrigation. He created an Agricultural ministy to distribute seeds and animals to farmers. He was the one responsible for the enlargement of the Grand Canal. He linked several cities (Daidu, Beijing, Hangzhou, etc...).


Talks like these... and the whole letting chinese see the benifit of unification etc.... are acturally strongly influneced and guided by the later dynasties (and even the modern PRC) for their own political purpose (obviously... convincing ppl that unification is the most important goal over all else as the proper course of history...)

more and more... modern historian (espically those outside of the PRC)with less political pressure put upon them... are able to examian (and acturally talk about it without accidently dissapearing)the Song/Yuan's real overall effect.....

The Yuan was not a very good dynasty at all... not even considering the initial massacer .... the population of China declined by a ridiculasly wooping 40% starting from the mongol conquest to the early/mid days of the Ming dynasties... while plague could be a possible explanation... the governmetn over it definately can't disconncet themself completely from this fact.

Basically all would agree that Kubelei Khan was about the only good emperor for the whole dynasty.... the policies you talked about were true... but eitehr you or the people who taught you convienently left out all the not so good policies such as racial segregation and very high restriction on local chinese entering administrative position (exception would be some of the chinese that helped the mongols in the conquest stages)

Or even the more social aspects...... all the Mongol nobels within China were granted the right to carve up a few village/county as their personal manor... and all the peasent within become his legal slave... or the fact that it was starting from the Yuan dynasty that the Ba Gu Wen system for scholar test began (which would end up dooming China's scholar system) or the fact that it was in the Yuan dynasty where offical court ruling greatly reduced women's rights in China (such as the right to sue or divorce....)

This was the... good part of the Mongol rule... after the first 2 emperor everything went to hell too with great corruption amoung the central asian muslim administraters... while the mongol nobles either fought each other or lavished themself in luxury (at the expensive of the population of course) economy went to hell as the Yuan rose taxes greatly (mostly to build large tibetian buddist temples and afford their own luxurious lifestyle) and even worse later on they began to mass print money to finance thier spending (anyone who have even the most basic knowledge in economics knows the horrible disastor that this results)

For the Mongol and the silk rout part... after the mid Tang dynasty and espically in the Song... most of the silk trading (and other chinese/central asian goods) were done over seas from the southern chinese ports to the ports in Arabia....

The Mongols did revive the Silk road overland to a extent... but it was rather short lived... by the time they had totally conquered China the mongols were divided between themself already... and most of their own fighting took place in central asia or the north western part of modern china... which is pretty much where the silk road is... which would also explain why Marco polo took the sea rout home instead of the land one.... even durin the reign of Kublei khan his main enemy was the mongol opposition raiding on the silk road.... he could not defeat them and let the raidings go on unchecked.... after his death it only became worse.

Song is typically viewed as a weak and a bad example of a dynasty.. but again that is highly politically motivated for all sort of reasons.... but i'm not going into that.

[Inuyasha12]

I doubt that they even wanted to take europe

Were they ever interested?