Well like the name says i highlly, highlly doubt that the mongles could have ever conqured the new world, now why you might ask, or what blaspemy is this, but i have some very interesting facts that support it, aside from the fact that they had not a chance in h*ll to cros an ocean.

Now first off we will take a look at the new world, and in paticuarl the plains "indians".- this assumes that the mongles were at least a little more hygeine oriented than the spianerds...so that means disease did not wipe out everyone and there dog too....

now first thing on your mind might be "well how could a bunch of horseless, near metaless people be any contest?
simple- bravery, this seems to have been all that was needed to hold up Spain from ever having a firm hold over the area, and they had rudimentery guns, and since the mongles brout there horses along with them, it would be long befor some how our native friends got hold of some.

now some people might be skeptical still, and i can see why, after all i still have no real argument or proof- only speculation, well if you want proof youll have to research a little, i suggest the revolt of 1680, in which the Pueblo people of New mexico rebelled against the spainerds, and brout theire expansion in the area to a dead halt.Now lets go forward in time to when there was hardley any native Americans left in the U.S at all, and still you have crusing defeats of U.S troops at battles like little big horn.After all it was these indians who gave the spainish first, and then the Americans of the era a run for there money on the settle ment of the west, even when the U.S had at its disposeal rifles,horses, and trains.If this spirit alone could nearlly fight off incursions by Imperialist era, and industrial era powers, i see a very close fight for any mongle who would have set foot upon North America in the name of conquest.this chapter will continue to expand as i find more info, but the next chapter will be on how African civs like the zulu, or even mo

or even more important the Azande tribes would have done to our little asiatic friends....

So there were incidents when Native Americans were succesfull in defending themselves, this was to be expected. Still overall it was all too easy for Europe to defeat the Native Americans. I think this is far off speculation that is nothing but a glorification of Native Americans, if China and Arabia and Russia fell to the Mongols I'm sure the Native Americans would have fallen harder.

Mongols rarely had a stable line of succession to achieve the political stability to keep a large empire.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Mongols rarely had a stable line of succession to achieve the political stability to keep a large empire.

I agree.
Without political stability you can't have an empire.
In this case, the mongols seem to be more like a barbaric tribe than tribe really inclined to build an empire.
The fact that they conquered so much in so little time is a prove that were not worried about stablishing goverment institutions in the recent conquered territories.

The Mongols did have a stable system of succession, it was pretty much derived from the most loyal people to the Khan, NOT blood relations (altough it did end up being like by blood). It all comes down to the Yasa Code. Genghis Khan established it and it brought great stablility to the inner workings of the Mongol Empire. The only way to be promated was a) to be skilled and b) to be loyal to the Khan. Over successive promotions, only the most loyal and deserving could ever hope to be Great Khan. There was also little doubt on who the successor would be. There are a few exceptions, like Arigh Boke and Qublai Khan were both appointed as Great Khan, but a good system of succession did exist.

As for diseases, the Mongols had some of the worst to spread to the Amerindians if they wished - the Black Death in its three different plagues comes to mind.

And as for battles, the Mongol armies were not easy to beat, their horses were superior to those used later by the Europeans and Americans, they had actual experience at destroying entire tribes and nations and the Amerindians could not have done much to stop them (as an example, the Mongols actually prefered to fight in the midst of the Russian Winter during the mini-Ice Age of that era, the same one which would end up defeating Napoleon and Hitler). But fighting in the rainforests and mountains of Central and South America would be a completely different story.

The mongols didn't really defeat Russia, for Russia was in its infancy.
Besides of that the russians retained a high degree of independence, as far as I know the russians remained under mongol control for convenience. In the 1200's they liberated themselves from mongol control.
The mongol empire was vast but most of the land was made of empty desert or the frozen siberian tundra.

"The mongol empire was vast but most of the land was made of empty desert or the frozen siberian tundra."

Lets pretend for your sake you didn't say that ;)

Russia was conquered, just one Muscovite prince tricked the Golden Horde good and never let it get discovered that they did. The Mongols were a very real and great danger to Russia until the 1400s, and even after then they could prove a major and immediate threat, capable of undermining the Tsar in every way, but then again all Central Asian nations have been like that.

Mongoloid Cow,

The line of succession was hardly stable. I don't that promotion is what is being spoken of at all, but rather the ascension to the 'throne'. Once Chinggis Khan died, Ogodei was given the reigns without any dispute, but with his death, and the death of the next Great Khan, Ogodei's son Guyuk, the trouble began when Jochi's son Batu refused to accept Guyuk's children as the rightful heirs to the Khan, and from then on, things were disjointed, with Jochi's line refusing to acknowledge Ogodei's line, and Tolui's line taking up the reigns for a while.

In the end, the Khan's empire was weakened from within because of such problems, and thus, past a certain point, it couldn't stay together.

The problem was resolved, the Mongol Empire only destroyed itself when Kubai Khan for no apparent logical reason moved the capital to Khanbalik (modern Beijing), and then stopped the natural expansion of the empire by starving the Il-Khans, Golden Horde and the Shiban Horde of troops to go to conquer Song China and and later try Japan and Java. It survived intact until 1295AD.

The problem was resolved, but for how long? You now had Golden Hordes and seperate Khanates that weren't quite too pleased by Great Khans, and that all outlived the empire, which only survived for a century and a half. I do agree, though, that Khubilai Khan did doom it with some rather poorly made decisions.

the point is; that in the plains indians case it seems that they could have caused huge casulties against a people who had no where near the technologicle development (at least in fire arms, and weopenry) that the Eupeans& descendents had, with ease, after all you have to admit that a force consisting mainlly of foot armed with bows, beating off conquistadors, the same people who conqured the Aztecs was no easy feat, and could easilly been done earllyer against a foe even less prepared for what they had in store for them- an industrial sized can of whoop @$$

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
"The mongol empire was vast but most of the land was made of empty desert or the frozen siberian tundra."

Lets pretend for your sake you didn't say that ;)

Russia was conquered, just one Muscovite prince tricked the Golden Horde good and never let it get discovered that they did. The Mongols were a very real and great danger to Russia until the 1400s, and even after then they could prove a major and immediate threat, capable of undermining the Tsar in every way, but then again all Central Asian nations have been like that.

By "most" I mean more than 50% of the territory. Everything east of the Urals is cold and at the time was empty and therefore worthless, Mongols occupied the desert of Gobi ( China ), Tibet, and the semi-arid cental Asia.

On my opinion the only important thing they conquered was China, Persia, and occupied Russia.
I have nothing against the mongols.

The Plains Amerindians (the word 'Indian' for the native North Americans really ticks me off) would have fallen quite easily to the Mongol armies. The Mongols come from a much harsher climate and had many new tactics and weapons which the Plains Amerindians could not have adopted or defended themselves successfully from, and that the Europeans and their descendants never used anything like them. The only problem I can think off for the Mongols would have been once they hit the mountainous and heaily jungled South and Central American civilisations, where they had very little experience or expertise.

Marsahl Zhukov, I was refering to the enormous, powerful and rich cities and tribes of Central Asia, especially those situated directly on the Silk Road, the only route from the East to the West. They had cities with a million people plus when European cities struggled to reach 30,000, and that is quite a large area stretching from the Caspian and Aral Seas right into modern-day China.

Originally posted by Xen
Well like the name says i highlly, highlly doubt that the mongles could have ever conqured the new world, now why you might ask, or what blaspemy is this, but i have some very interesting facts that support it, aside from the fact that they had not a chance in h*ll to cros an ocean.If they had known the New World existed, they'd have crossed it, had they wished. Both Korea and Song China had vast navies with ships several times larger than anything Europe could put to sea for the next few centuries. When they fell to the Mongols, control of their navies went to the Mongols too.

And they're Mongols, not 'mongles'... :rolleyes:

Now first off we will take a look at the new world, and in paticuarl the plains "indians".- this assumes that the mongles were at least a little more hygeine oriented than the spianerds...so that means disease did not wipe out everyone and there dog too....Why would the Mongols want to conquer the Americas, even if they had known about it? There's nothing of worth there. :p They didn't even bother with W Europe.

The peoples of the Old World were more dangerous as far as diseases were concerned. Tens of times more Amerindians died fr diseases brought in by the Spaniards, than fr Europe weopanry... And China was the original source of the Black Death plague, merely a stone throw's away fr Mongolia... :rolleyes:

now first thing on your mind might be "well how could a bunch of horseless, near metaless people be any contest?
simple- bravery, this seems to have been all that was needed to hold up Spain from ever having a firm hold over the area, and they had rudimentery guns, and since the mongles brout there horses along with them, it would be long befor some how our native friends got hold of some.I think the Mongols individually were as brave as any other savage people who'd ever appeared on the face of this world. :rolleyes:

What made them worse was GK forging them into a united force, and the instrument of his will.

now some people might be skeptical still, and i can see why, after all i still have no real argument or proof- only speculation, well if you want proof youll have to research a little, i suggest the revolt of 1680, in which the Pueblo people of New mexico rebelled against the spainerds, and brout theire expansion in the area to a dead halt.The Spaniards were angels compared to the Mongols. Had it been the Mongols; they'd have killed everyone who resisted. The Mongols perfected the usage of terror as an instrument of conquest and state control.

Now lets go forward in time to when there was hardley any native Americans left in the U.S at all, and still you have crusing defeats of U.S troops at battles like little big horn.More like the Americans got careless and allowing themselves to be defeated...

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
The Plains Amerindians (the word 'Indian' for the native North Americans really ticks me off) would have fallen quite easily to the Mongol armies. The Mongols come from a much harsher climate and had many new tactics and weapons which the Plains Amerindians could not have adopted or defended themselves successfully from, and that the Europeans and their descendants never used anything like them. The only problem I can think off for the Mongols would have been once they hit the mountainous and heaily jungled South and Central American civilisations, where they had very little experience or expertise. The favorite of which was the use of terror as an instument of conquest. Killed the entirety of the nation or tribe that resisted, spared the tribes who surrendered and allowed the news to get ahead of the Mongol armies.

And the perfected use of signals to allow the Mongol army to split into several columns and hit the enemy fr all sides at the same time. It's believed that the planners of Germany's blitzkrieg tactics took a few cues fr the Mongols' operational modus.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Marsahl Zhukov, I was refering to the enormous, powerful and rich cities and tribes of Central Asia, especially those situated directly on the Silk Road, the only route from the East to the West. They had cities with a million people plus when European cities struggled to reach 30,000, and that is quite a large area stretching from the Caspian and Aral Seas right into modern-day China. Samarkand, Bukhara etc. I believe had the region not being devastated by the Mongols during their path of conquest and the region's famed irrigation works destroyed or at least, unmaintained during the same period, the Tsars would not have found them to be so easy a conquest later on. Even today, Central Asia still hadn't recovered fr the Mongol onslaught, in some aspects...

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
The problem was resolved, the Mongol Empire only destroyed itself when Kubai Khan for no apparent logical reason moved the capital to Khanbalik (modern Beijing), and then stopped the natural expansion of the empire by starving the Il-Khans, Golden Horde and the Shiban Horde of troops to go to conquer Song China and and later try Japan and Java. It survived intact until 1295AD. Song China was the greatest and richest prize of all. Why bother with the rest, before taking this prize? :p

Besides, Kubilai had already engaged the Chinese in battles for years, before his elevation, at the command of his brother, the Great Khan Mongke.

Like I'd said before, the move to Beijing was brilliant for Khubilai. The Mongols could never have effectively ruled China, fr the steppes. By bringing the resources of China into his calculus, Khubilai could engage in further adventures... like Japan, Java, Burma etc. All of which were to prove unsuccessful in the long run.

And I don't think the other khanates were 'starving' of troops. The Mongols had the armies of many nations at their disposal. The Mongols themselves were never numerous and had always depended on the subject troops as 'cannon' fodder.

Kublai Khan made the mistake of taking troops from where they also could have been useful - that is in far-northern central Russia (Shibans) and the Middle East and India (Il-Khans). This was one of his biggest mistakes.

Also by moving the capital to Khanbalik, he isolated the Great Khan from the rest of the empire so it broke apart inevitably. It also alienated all of the Mongols, and it took more than three days for urgent news to reach the capital, delaying response time.

a lot can happen in 6 days(return to front trip counts to!) over land, but i think the mongles would still be halted to lengthy multi-month jorney ovwersea that everone else was, another thing in favor of Native Americans everywhere


BTW- my Azande article is almost fini, it will show why the Azande had a very good chance to defeat the mongols

"had many new tactics and weapons which the Plains Amerindians could not have adopted or defended themselves successfully from"- reference to the mongols

the same can be said for the Spainerds, but look what happend to them :rolleyes:

"word 'Indian' for the native North Americans really ticks me off"
considering that most transcontenental migratory Asiatic peoples dont find the word offensive in any way, and infact know that its become the defacto american slang word for them(similer to the way "black" stands for well any African desendant, but in paticular African-Americans(yes we know they are all American, but we, for some reason feel compelled to seperate our selves from one another by our ancestory)

"The favorite of which was the use of terror as an instument of conquest. Killed the entirety of the nation or tribe that resisted, spared the tribes who surrendered and allowed the news to get ahead of the Mongol armies. "

again very similer to spanish tacticts, only the Spanish i think eneded off treating them worse than the mongols would have

Originally posted by Xen
the same can be said for the Spainerds, but look what happend to them :rolleyes:They successfully destroyed the two mightiest empires of the Amerindians, took over the entire continent (except for Brazil) fr Florida and New Mexico all the way south until the Cape. Pretty solid achievement by any standards...

Look what happened to the Amerindians when the Spaniards strolled in... :rolleyes:

considering that most transcontenental migratory Asiatic peoples dont find the word offensive in any way, and infact know that its become the defacto american slang word for them(similer to the way "black" stands for well any African desendant, but in paticular African-Americans(yes we know they are all American, but we, for some reason feel compelled to seperate our selves from one another by our ancestory)I think the real Indians will want to lay claim to the name, in an international board such as this. This is more than just an American forum, you know. ;)

again very similer to spanish tacticts, only the Spanish i think eneded off treating them worse than the mongols would haveThe Spanish justified it by religion and God. The Mongols just killed you. How could it be worse than that? :confused:

Originally posted by Xen
Well like the name says i highlly, highlly doubt that the mongles could have ever conqured the new world, now why you might ask, or what blaspemy is this, but i have some very interesting facts that support it, aside from the fact that they had not a chance in h*ll to cros an ocean.

Now first off we will take a look at the new world, and in paticuarl the plains "indians".- this assumes that the mongles were at least a little more hygeine oriented than the spianerds...so that means disease did not wipe out everyone and there dog too....

now first thing on your mind might be "well how could a bunch of horseless, near metaless people be any contest?
simple- bravery, this seems to have been all that was needed to hold up Spain from ever having a firm hold over the area, and they had rudimentery guns, and since the mongles brout there horses along with them, it would be long befor some how our native friends got hold of some.

now some people might be skeptical still, and i can see why, after all i still have no real argument or proof- only speculation, well if you want proof youll have to research a little, i suggest the revolt of 1680, in which the Pueblo people of New mexico rebelled against the spainerds, and brout theire expansion in the area to a dead halt.Now lets go forward in time to when there was hardley any native Americans left in the U.S at all, and still you have crusing defeats of U.S troops at battles like little big horn.After all it was these indians who gave the spainish first, and then the Americans of the era a run for there money on the settle ment of the west, even when the U.S had at its disposeal rifles,horses, and trains.If this spirit alone could nearlly fight off incursions by Imperialist era, and industrial era powers, i see a very close fight for any mongle who would have set foot upon North America in the name of conquest.this chapter will continue to expand as i find more info, but the next chapter will be on how African civs like the zulu, or even mo


:lol: :lol:

You have convinced me. Rigth now I'm going to the "Who was closest to conquer the world" thread and say it was Native Americans. They were so brave ....

:lol:

The Spanish justified it by religion and God. The Mongols just killed you.

actually i'm not indian at all, i'm Italian(Tuscan-Roman) from my father, and noble Normano English from my mother(along with a few other eccentricities, such as Scott

i just happen to think PLAINS NATIVE AMERICANS, not the Aztecs, or the maya, or any other central American tribe could- they were to centralized to do so(the non centralization means that various tribes would have fighting the mongols for a long,long,looonggg time, i also think anyone inhabiting a jungle would have wiped out mongol expeditions, but that i'll save for the Azande article comming out mabey tomorrow, or even later today, if i feel like typing alot.

They wouldn't have been fighting for long - the first sign of trouble and the entire tribe would be history. Added with all the incredibly nasty diseases the Mongols would deliberately or indirectly give them, they stood very little chance IMO.

I think you need to look at north American history a bit more closlly, a lot of what have said took a very similerappernce with the spanish incursions, not to mention British(although they never got to the great plains), but the indians continued to fight, and thier nations might still be around, if not for boom sticks...

The Mongol empire was like Sumer. IT was inevitable, the empire would have to split up sooner or later. The politics were just too fuzzy and local governors could easily declare succession from the Empire, thus begining a civil war, which would weaken the empire. At any sign of trouble, the "citizens" of the empire could have rebelled and declared their independence. I do not think ANY civilization that existed that long ago could ever have conquered the world, especially the really barbaric ones.

Xen, the Europeans at least had some form of humanity, they could just go around and kill them off which is unlike the Mongols who would have done it for a bit of quick fun.

earendil, all empires break up, it is inevitable. Just remember that the USA will one day be a thing heard of only in history books. Of course the empire would break up. But the point of this thread is if the Mongols could conquer America, which they most certainly had the potential to do.

I do think that it was conceivable for them to conquer america, but it is highly unlikely. How would they have gotten the ships? My point was, the Mongol empire would have disintegrated by the time in which it is posible for a naval undertaking of that magnitude. I do not think that they would even have major port cities to build the ships, because they were not very commercial compared to the renaissance European nations that built many advanced ships to complete the "invasion". Besides, the Native Americans would have put up a significant fight to the Mongols.

The Koreans made the Mongols ships on the island of Choju, but Koreans and Chinese elsewhere could make ocean-worthy ships also.

I think we are all forgetting one simple thing when we talk about the Mongol conquests....
....why were they so successful?

It certainly was not because of technological superiority....they were using the same composite bows and armour in the 13th century AD as their distant ancestors the Scythians were using in the 4th century BC! :eek:

So what was the reason for their success?
Simple, is was because of.....
....Genghis Khan!

That’s right. One man, who took control with his iron will this backward, cultureless, primitive people, and forced them into stop fighting each other and instead led them as a united people....and made them into an all conquering force.

Without the Great Khan the Mongols would have been nothing, just as they were nothing from 1,200BC to 1,200AD.

So instead of discussing the actual or possible achievements of the PEOPLE, you should all be discussing the achievements and possibilities of the MAN. ;)

But there is still logistics to consider, with a full invasion force on the north American continet, starting from the coast(probabley the pacific, but any you want) the mongols "foriegn policey" was liklly to win even less allies than any european power, that copuled with the crippiling fact that any allied troops would soon die off because of various disiases, and that no tribes would help the mogols at all after the first few tribes were obliterated, and word of the action spread means that it would have been neally impossible for a mongol invasion force of any size to conqure halfway to the great plains, let alone take, and hold on to any great plains holdings, as the Native Americans there would have put up more of a fight than any coastal Indian tribe would have.

Originally posted by earendil
I do think that it was conceivable for them to conquer america, but it is highly unlikely. How would they have gotten the ships? My point was, the Mongol empire would have disintegrated by the time in which it is posible for a naval undertaking of that magnitude. I do not think that they would even have major port cities to build the ships, because they were not very commercial compared to the renaissance European nations that built many advanced ships to complete the "invasion". Besides, the Native Americans would have put up a significant fight to the Mongols. They didn't have to build the fleet themselves. Like Mongoloid Cow said, they got the Koreans and Chinese to do it. For their two Japan campaigns.

Hell, they even got the Koreans and Chinese to man the fleet and fill the ranks, with only some core units aboard.

And, the Chinese, Turkmen, Koreans, Jurchens, Kara-Khitai, Arabs etc put up a great fight, but still the Mongol military machine won... Whether the Amerindians will put up a significant fight isn't the point.

Originally posted by Xen
But there is still logistics to consider, with a full invasion force on the north American continet, starting from the coast(probabley the pacific, but any you want) the mongols "foriegn policey" was liklly to win even less allies than any european power, that copuled with the crippiling fact that any allied troops would soon die off because of various disiases, and that no tribes would help the mogols at all after the first few tribes were obliterated, and word of the action spread means that it would have been neally impossible for a mongol invasion force of any size to conqure halfway to the great plains, let alone take, and hold on to any great plains holdings, as the Native Americans there would have put up more of a fight than any coastal Indian tribe would have. If there's any people or military force in history, who doesn't need logistics, it's the Mongols.

They can survive on their horses' blood, ride a thousand miles sleeping in their saddles, and still fight at the end of it.

And is there a difference fr 'Native Americans' and 'any coastal Indian tribe' since you seem to be implying there's a qualitative diff betw the two? As I recalled, the Aztecs and Incas weren't coastal tribes either. They didn't do that well, vs the small no of Spanish invaders.

The only reason why the Plains tribes managed to survive longer w/o interference was simply 'cause the Europeans never had a major cause to come at them in any number, prior to America's expansion into its West. During which, the Amerindians were simply driven deeper and deeper into the West by American colonists, troops etc IIRC.

you forget the spanish incursions into New Mexico,California,Texas,Arizona, and southern Nevada,Utah, and Colorado, i'd say the spanish more than met their match there, not to mention the stats had one hell of a time subduing the Natives, even with our remingtons


And is there a difference fr 'Native Americans' and 'any coastal Indian tribe' since you seem to be implying there's a qualitative diff betw the two?

depends on the local, central American Indians, and the tribes from the modern U.S& Canada were extreamlly different, in almost every(non phisical) way, do some homework on them instead of mere speculation, and i think my point will come across

IF the Mongols were able to deploy a substantial force in the New World, then I think they would easily be a match for the Amerindians.

The Amerindians have not any counter-measure to the tactics, weapons, scale and savagery of the Mongols. In terms of the Great Plains, it would be ideal territory for the Mongol Horde and they would have significantly better movement than the Native Plains Indians. The skirmishing of the Mongols and continuous harrassing would have made a mockery of the Plain Indians...

I haven't heard of one counter-measure the Amerindians have that could be employed successfully against the Mongols.

Xen your assertion that bravery would stop the slaughter machine that was the Mongol Horde is a complete nonsense were the Mongols in a position to deploy against such peoples.


The only saving factor for the Amerindians is that the Mongols had many other targets closer to home and their main problems were with how they could rule over such a great empire with so few actual Mongols. If the Amerindians were in close proximity to the Mongols then they'd would have been dispatched in short order, especially due to their fatal lack of cavalry.

Originally posted by Xen
you forget the spanish incursions into New Mexico,California,Texas,Arizona, and southern Nevada,Utah, and Colorado, i'd say the spanish more than met their match there, not to mention the stats had one hell of a time subduing the Natives, even with our remingtonsIf you think about it properly, to Spain, those 'incursions' into those areas were merely that - 'incursions'. There isn't anything there to attract the Spanish to come in numbers, unlike the gold, purported or real, of the Aztec and Incan empires.

There's a difference betw 'incursions' and a full-out invasion. :rolleyes:

depends on the local, central American Indians, and the tribes from the modern U.S& Canada were extreamlly different, in almost every(non phisical) way, do some homework on them instead of mere speculation, and i think my point will come across As I recalled, the most ferocious Indian tribe of all was the Caribs, who're cannibals, as well as certain Amazonian tribes. I'm almost sure I'm quite well aware of the differences betw the Ameridian tribes. :rolleyes:

And IIRC, the Sioux and many of the other 'Plains' Indians were originally fr the eastern side of the US. They were driven to the Plains, by the first American colonists into the region...

If you think about it properly, to Spain, those 'incursions' into those areas were merely that - 'incursions'. There isn't anything there to attract the Spanish to come in numbers, unlike the gold, purported or real, of the Aztec and Incan empires.

-slaves, spreading catholsicim(a mojor reason for spanish conquest), and always looking for gold everwhere, even in the most unliklly places epitomized spansh occupation

And IIRC, the Sioux and many of the other 'Plains' Indians were originally fr the eastern side of the US. They were driven to the Plains, by the first American colonists into the region...

the sioux warriors suck(not relley but...) i'm talking more about the Commanche!

They didn't know about america, ha ha ha

Isn't this thread about the whole world not just the new world, or have I missed domething?
I'm wondering, though, would the Mongols have bothered? They would probably have wanted the whole Old world subjugated first.
The arguement that Mongols would have been stopped by the "might" of the Amerindians is laughable, the Amerindians fought among themselves and many would have been tempted to side with this decisive force which, unlike the Europeans was not in anyway inclined to colinization.

another thing, the american-indian of 1250-1300 ad did NOT HAVE horses, horse were stolen from the spanish in the 1600-1700. so these were not the souix or chyenne of custer fame. 10,000 souix on foot vs 10,000 mongol cavalry is a mismatch