How would you change history?

[Huayna Capac357]

Hmmm... I would either

1) Make sure Bismarck is never ousted from power, that would really change the world, it'd be fun to see what would happen

2) Make sure that once Huyana Capac dies, that there is no civil war between his two sons for control of the Inca Empire. And with the massive death and destruction of the civil war out of the way, the Inca might have a much better chance at taking down the Conquistadors of Spain once they invaded.

3) I'd like to try and convince the Mongol generals, after their invasion of Russia, to take their armies all the way into Europe. I know this isn't for the better, but of the Mongols made it farther into Europe than they did, I'd really (once again) like to see the results, after a mass depopulation of Europe (this is also pre-black plague, so it would kinda be a double-wammy on Europe after the Mongols were through).

I thought it was a troll when I saw the Huayna Capac dying bit

Seriously though, the Incan inheritance system was so convoluted it was bound to come crashing down at some point. They were just unfortunate enough for it to be when the Europeans came.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I stick to my point Fascism is derived from Communism. No one sat down and wrote a book called the "Fascist Manifesto". Concentration camps, classifying opponents as mentally ill (coming back into fashion), secret police, relentless propaganda, zero freedom of speech, gun control, banning of any other political parties I could go on but they all share these ideas.

Liberalism and Conservatism share the belief in capitalism and that racism is bad. And that democracy is good. So are liberals and conservatives derived from the same place? No. Your argument is ridiculous! Of course someone wrote a Fascist Manifesto! It's called Mein Kampf! None of the things you mentioned are in the Communist Manifesto, anyway. Have you even read the Communist Manifesto? Once again, you haven't answered that fascism is a capitalistic belief. And capitalism is fundamentally opposed to communism. As a capitalistic belief, fascism is fundamentally and irreversibly opposed and separate from communism.

 

[Dachs]

1) Make sure Bismarck is never ousted from power, that would really change the world, it'd be fun to see what would happen

Meh, he would've probably only stayed on as kanzler for another few years at most. Then Wilhelm would come in and screw over Europe for a shot at an alliance with Britain.

3) I'd like to try and convince the Mongol generals, after their invasion of Russia, to take their armies all the way into Europe. I know this isn't for the better, but of the Mongols made it farther into Europe than they did, I'd really (once again) like to see the results, after a mass depopulation of Europe (this is also pre-black plague, so it would kinda be a double-wammy on Europe after the Mongols were through).

It would be highly unlikely that the Mongols could destroy the Holy Roman Empire, much less push into Western Europe. And even if they did take a foothold in Central Europe, it wouldn't last ten years.

 

[sydhe]

I'd start off with lasers, day one. And ban those blasted midgets.

 

[aronnax]

It would be highly unlikely that the Mongols could destroy the Holy Roman Empire, much less push into Western Europe. And even if they did take a foothold in Central Europe, it wouldn't last ten years.

And Why not? I think they could have made it all the way to Paris for at least half a century.

 

[frog3]

Turks capture Wien in 1683 and conquer central Europe and Italy.

-Rome become one of center of islam.
-Hitler do not take power.
-France is the most powerful nation in the world.

I'd go back and kill you to stop you changing anything.

 

[Dachs]

And Why not? I think they could have made it all the way to Paris for at least half a century.

Because they didn't do that much damage when they came in the first time, their technological advantage wasn't as relevant in the European climate, Europe's terrain was largely unfavorable...it would have required an investment of effort roughly commensurate with the Mongol conquest of Song China, except projecting force over a much greater space.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Seriously though, the Incan inheritance system was so convoluted it was bound to come crashing down at some point. They were just unfortunate enough for it to be when the Europeans came.

Well, maybe if Huyana just lived a couple more years... or only had one son

Meh, he would've probably only stayed on as kanzler for another few years at most. Then Wilhelm would come in and screw over Europe for a shot at an alliance with Britain.

Well, in those few years you never know what he could have done, maybe he would get the chance to make sure Wilhelm didn't screw over relations with Russia, or such stuff like that.

It would be highly unlikely that the Mongols could destroy the Holy Roman Empire, much less push into Western Europe. And even if they did take a foothold in Central Europe, it wouldn't last ten years.

Well, even if they didn't make it past the Holy Roman Empire, when attacking they would still do some serious damage to the army/cities they were able to conquer. That would of course weaken the Holy Roman Empire, and someone would probably come along and take advantage of it.

Because they didn't do that much damage when they came in the first time, their technological advantage wasn't as relevant in the European climate, Europe's terrain was largely unfavorable...it would have required an investment of effort roughly commensurate with the Mongol conquest of Song China, except projecting force over a much greater space.

They seemed to be able to take Russia just fine, and of course everyone knows that they took it in the dead of winter (then again, Russia wasn't very powerful at the time either ). But climate issue aside, the Mongols had two main weapons going for them, fear and numbers. With the way they decimated Russia, and the Middle East, stories were already making it back to Europe about the strength and power of the Mongols. You don't know how many kingdoms would have surrendered our of fear of a Mongol attack, or even a Mongol razing, which is even more vicious. And then, the Mongols had staggering numbers, if they really put their full force at Europe, they might not take it instantly, but eventually, the Holy Roman Empire and his fellow Europeans would eventually just give way, their armies weren't anything (size wise) compared to the Mongols. So if they kept their attacks persistent, eventually they would push pretty far into Europe.

 

[Karalysia]

The Mongols decimated Hungary

 

[Dachs]

Well, in those few years you never know what he could have done, maybe he would get the chance to make sure Wilhelm didn't screw over relations with Russia, or such stuff like that.

And when the Reinsurance Treaty was up for renewal again after he was gone, Wilhelm et al would fail to renew it on the old grounds of it being incompatible with the Romanian and Austrian alliances, which were really just cover for their goal of an Anglo-German alliance. It's the old deal all over again. To change the German foreign policy before the war, you get rid of Wilhelm entirely, you don't give von Bismarck a few more years.

Well, even if they didn't make it past the Holy Roman Empire, when attacking they would still do some serious damage to the army/cities they were able to conquer. That would of course weaken the Holy Roman Empire, and someone would probably come along and take advantage of it.

Possibly. Or the Mongols could come in and wipe out a lot of the particularist notables and thus inadvertently strengthen imperial power - it's not as though the Emperors usually spent a lot of time on the Polish frontier.

They seemed to be able to take Russia just fine, and of course everyone knows that they took it in the dead of winter (then again, Russia wasn't very powerful at the time either ). But climate issue aside, the Mongols had two main weapons going for them, fear and numbers. With the way they decimated Russia, and the Middle East, stories were already making it back to Europe about the strength and power of the Mongols. You don't know how many kingdoms would have surrendered our of fear of a Mongol attack, or even a Mongol razing, which is even more vicious. And then, the Mongols had staggering numbers, if they really put their full force at Europe, they might not take it instantly, but eventually, the Holy Roman Empire and his fellow Europeans would eventually just give way, their armies weren't anything (size wise) compared to the Mongols. So if they kept their attacks persistent, eventually they would push pretty far into Europe.

See, this is assuming that the Mongols would be able to consistently project power this far and take advantage of initial cleavages in European society and the wedges they themselves created. "If they kept their attacks persistent" is not a reasonable assumption. Like I said, it took the concentrated effort of two khakhans to bring down Song China, and that was right next door to the main Mongolian power base; with the virtually-inevitable fragmentation due in the next few decades, it doesn't make any sense to assume that the Mongols could maintain that kind of effort against a second series of antagonists halfway around the globe.

The Mongols decimated Hungary

And shockingly enough the Kingdom of Hungary didn't actually collapse during that invasion. Between the time of the Battle of Mohi and the Mongol departure from the country, the Mongols grappled rather ineffectively with both irregular and regular resistance from Hungarians, royal retainers and haiduk-style forces alike. Hungarian resources recovered to the extent that the country was able to win a border war with Austria and destroy a Slavanian resistance movement in the year after the Mongol departure.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Dachs, do you know everything that has ever happened in history?

Seriously though, the myth of Mongols uber-pwning Europe has been busted over and over.

And decimated means only 10%.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Possibly. Or the Mongols could come in and wipe out a lot of the particularist notables and thus inadvertently strengthen imperial power - it's not as though the Emperors usually spent a lot of time on the Polish frontier.

Well, what I was really thinking about was the army. If the Holy Roman Empire concentrated its army on defending itself from Mongol invasion on the Eastern side of their empire, then that means they would have to leave their entire West side open to attack from anyone. And yes, they probably would need their entire army to stave off the massive Mongol hordes.

See, this is assuming that the Mongols would be able to consistently project power this far and take advantage of initial cleavages in European society and the wedges they themselves created. "If they kept their attacks persistent" is not a reasonable assumption. Like I said, it took the concentrated effort of two khakhans to bring down Song China, and that was right next door to the main Mongolian power base; with the virtually-inevitable fragmentation due in the next few decades, it doesn't make any sense to assume that the Mongols could maintain that kind of effort against a second series of antagonists halfway around the globe.

Well, really, you have to think about the differences between Southern China, and Northern Europe. For one, Southern China is extremely hilly and very forested, which of course didn't really work out all to well with their horsemen. But they found a way around that, which is of course they decided to invade by sea, which took the hills and forests out of question.

Now when you think about Northern Europe, there are some similarities when compared to Southern China. They are both heavily forested, have wet climates, and at the time, were pretty populated (though of course the Song were much more densely populated than Northern Europe was ). Though, I think, the one major difference between the two is that Northern Europe is flat, very flat. That, of course, would work into the Mongols advantage, with their main strategy of overrunning everyone on giant horses. So, with their advantage, I don't think they would have really needed a concentrated campaign, but could have already used the troops that were tearing through Russia and eastern Europe.

Plus, you also have to factor in some of the Mongol strategies, the most notorious, was of course taking a dead bodies of people infected with the Bubonic Plague and hurling them over wall of cities they were attacking. Which, if they decided to move into Europe, could have a untold effect on the armies they were against.

 

[Squonk]

Mongols did manage to cripple Poland, but mostly because the duke died in the battle, and his son was a child, so the hegemony of dukes of Wroclaw in Poland ended with Mongol invasion, and the fight for the domination among Piast dukes continued.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And decimated means only 10%.

Arguably, its current usage has overruled its origin. I don't like this, but it is probably the case nonetheless.

 

[Dachs]

Changing history: I'd like Pausanias of Orestis to have screwed up at Aigai.

Dachs, do you know everything that has ever happened in history?

No. Not even close.

Well, what I was really thinking about was the army. If the Holy Roman Empire concentrated its army on defending itself from Mongol invasion on the Eastern side of their empire, then that means they would have to leave their entire West side open to attack from anyone. And yes, they probably would need their entire army to stave off the massive Mongol hordes.

The Holy Roman Empire's "army"? It probably wouldn't be that centralized of an effort on the whole. Besides, Saint Louis wasn't really the man to take advantage of an Imperial war with the Mongols, especially since he was usually on good terms with Friedrich II.

Well, really, you have to think about the differences between Southern China, and Northern Europe. For one, Southern China is extremely hilly and very forested, which of course didn't really work out all to well with their horsemen. But they found a way around that, which is of course they decided to invade by sea, which took the hills and forests out of question.

Now when you think about Northern Europe, there are some similarities when compared to Southern China. They are both heavily forested, have wet climates, and at the time, were pretty populated (though of course the Song were much more densely populated than Northern Europe was ). Though, I think, the one major difference between the two is that Northern Europe is flat, very flat. That, of course, would work into the Mongols advantage, with their main strategy of overrunning everyone on giant horses. So, with their advantage, I don't think they would have really needed a concentrated campaign, but could have already used the troops that were tearing through Russia and eastern Europe.

So basically you went through and compared the Northern European Plain's geography (mostly concentrating on Poland and Hungary, looks like; you do realize that Central European terrain is a great deal more unfriendly and less flat than the Alföld or much of European Russia...) to that of Song China, noted that the Mongol method in bypassing these geographical disadvantages was the heavy use of a naval arm. Said method of bypassing the geographical problems would be largely if not wholly unavailable to the Mongols in Europe. Your conclusion based on these assertions: the Mongols could have used the troops already in Eastern Europe - troops that were already having serious problems with the Hungarians - to carry out a conquest of the remainder.

WTH?

Plus, you also have to factor in some of the Mongol strategies, the most notorious, was of course taking a dead bodies of people infected with the Bubonic Plague and hurling them over wall of cities they were attacking. Which, if they decided to move into Europe, could have a untold effect on the armies they were against.

If the Mongols have plague victims to use, that means they're getting hit by said plague too. Besides, what prevents the Europeans from having "strategies"?

 

[RedRalph]

True story: I had a dream the other night, that I gained some ill-defined superpowers and went back in time to 1865. I saved Lincoln and helped him do civil rights and Reconstruction right, often by threatening people.

that's a classic

I'm sorry I shattered your comfortable consensus with original thinking.

Yeah, a lot of people who are trying to be contrary or just plain wrong tend to call themsleves original thinkers

 

[aronnax]

Because they didn't do that much damage when they came in the first time, their technological advantage wasn't as relevant in the European climate, Europe's terrain was largely unfavorable...it would have required an investment of effort roughly commensurate with the Mongol conquest of Song China, except projecting force over a much greater space.

Whenever someone brings up the terrain argument, I always think, "Is China a flat piece of land?" If we were to take Wikipedian estimates, it took 200,000-400,000 mongol troops, 22 years to crush Northern China (Jin Dynasty) and 450,000 Mongol troops, 33 years to crush Southern China (Song Dynasty).

During this time period (1211-1279) , while the Mongols were attacking China, the Mongols invaded and crushed everything from Xinjiang to the Black Sea. Very stable, powerful states like Georgia, who BTW had the geographic advantage of a mountain range was subjugated. Less troops were needed to take down Khwarezmia than China which is obvious due to the sheer number of people in China. Hungary is way smaller than both Khwarezmia and China in population and area. 70,000 troops at the Battle of Mohi would be enough to control all of the Hungarian plain.

Okay, I admit, I was exaggerating a little when I said that they could hold Paris. But I am quite sure that if the Mongols did not withdraw, Everything East of Switzerland could have been controlled. Batu Khan wanted to subjugate Europe after his invasion of Hungary. An occupation meant that Bela could not have returned and built fortresses that stopped Mongol advance. If they stayed in Hungary and Poland, the fortified cities that they could not take would had surrendered in Isolation and those that did not surrender would be captured when Mongol artillery, which was used extensively in walled Chinese Cities would have arrived in Europe. Maybe they won't reached Paris, but they can sure hell take all of Poland, Hungary and a good exhausting chunk of HRE before succumbing to the sheer size of the Empire and resistance. Though, that would have taken at least 50 to 100 years judging from China and Russia.

 

[Dachs]

Whenever someone brings up the terrain argument, I always think, "Is China a flat piece of land?"

I have not favorably compared European ground with Chinese. I have stated that the ground, combined with the higher population, the style of warfare currently in vogue, the level of fortification of the region, and problems arising from Mongol power projection, would make it extremely unlikely for the Mongols to seize Europe.

If we were to take Wikipedian estimates, it took 200,000-400,000 mongol troops, 22 years to crush Northern China (Jin Dynasty) and 450,000 Mongol troops, 33 years to crush Southern China (Song Dynasty).

During this time period (1211-1279) , while the Mongols were attacking China, the Mongols invaded and crushed everything from Xinjiang to the Black Sea.

And they failed to invade and crush areas with rather remarkable similarity in terms of the efficacy of Mongol weapons (places that were not dry) and population density. Like India. And Europe. And, hell, Vietnam. The one of these that they did manage to conquer was Song China. This required a sustained effort, as you noted, over a period of several decades, eventually utilizing an overwhelming ship-building capacity, and had the benefit of being relatively close to the Mongol power base and thus less subject to friction than a campaign directed against Central and Western Europe.

Very stable, powerful states like Georgia, who BTW had the geographic advantage of a mountain range was subjugated. Less troops were needed to take down Khwarezmia than China which is obvious due to the sheer number of people in China. Hungary is way smaller than both Khwarezmia and China in population and area. 70,000 troops at the Battle of Mohi would be enough to control all of the Hungarian plain.

But it wasn't enough to control all of the Hungarian plain! Haven't you been paying attention at all? I've been saying over and over again that the Mongols couldn't keep control of Hungary after the close victory at Mohi. Over the course of the year after the battle, the segments of the country that they did hold were subject to constant raids by irregular forces. Mongol detachments were also defeated by those of Béla IV's retainers that didn't manage to reach Mohi in time to be defeated. This is in the bloody Alföld we're talking about here - nice, generally quite flat, overall rather well suited for horse archer warfare. And yet they were unable to totally overwhelm resistance there, much less the parts of Hungary, like Székesfehérvár, where the terrain was poor for horse-archer warfare.

Comparing Khwarizm to Europe in terms of Mongol ability to pacify the region isn't particularly helpful, because whereas in Central Asia the Mongols were a great deal closer to their power base, and on good ground that steppe warriors consistently inhabited for millennia, Germany and Italy are rather significantly not like that and much further away from any sources of fresh Mongols or Mongol-style troops that the Mongols could use.

Okay, I admit, I was exaggerating a little when I said that they could hold Paris. But I am quite sure that if the Mongols did not withdraw, Everything East of Switzerland could have been controlled. Batu Khan wanted to subjugate Europe after his invasion of Hungary. An occupation meant that Bela could not have returned and built fortresses that stopped Mongol advance. If they stayed in Hungary and Poland, the fortified cities that they could not take would had surrendered in Isolation and those that did not surrender would be captured when Mongol artillery, which was used extensively in walled Chinese Cities would have arrived in Europe. Maybe they won't reached Paris, but they can sure hell take all of Poland, Hungary and a good exhausting chunk of HRE before succumbing to the sheer size of the Empire and resistance. Though, that would have taken at least 50 to 100 years judging from China and Russia.

That presupposes a sizable investment of resources that I not only doubt the Mongols were willing to make, I doubt they were also able to make it. Not in Europe. They might prolong the control of the Magyar appanage, they might displace Poland, but not for any longer than a decade or so. That's a pretty large investment of resources. There's a reason that the Mongols didn't manage to build upon their success at Mohi and return to Western Europe, and it's a strikingly similar reason to why the Romans didn't rebuild the Germania province after the victories of Germanicus.

14,000 posts! 14,000 posts!!!

 

[Phrossack]

Of course, it wasn't the Qamuq Monggol Ulus that attacked Java, Vietnam, and the Sung, but the Great Khanate, which logically did not have the resources of the former. Second, the Mongols, of course, withdrew from Europe, as Subutai had to return to Mongolia due to Ogodei's death.

 

[Dachs]

Of course, it wasn't the Qamuq Monggol Ulus that attacked Java, Vietnam, and the Sung, but the Great Khanate, which logically did not have the resources of the former.

Quite. It still isn't right next door to Europe.

Second, the Mongols, of course, withdrew from Europe, as Subutai had to return to Mongolia due to Ogodei's death.

That's such a stupid reason for explaining why the terrifying Mongols didn't conquer all Europe blah blah blah. If they were able to do so, and if they would derive advantage from it, they'd go back after the death of Ögedei, when Güyük was elected and they could go back to normal rape pillage murder slaughter their way across everything in their path usw. The election did not deprive them of their armies; their resources were not greatly depleted after the succession. Why did they fail to renew their invasion of Europe if it was within their abilities?