Mongolian conquests (split from Civ4 Stories thread)

[ilduce349]

That is a bad idea! A VERY BAD IDEA!

 

[W|M]

Or rather, it may be a very good idea...

 

[ilduce349]

That was after two dynasty collapses, when the gods no longer favored the Japanese...
and had nothing to do with Mongolia

 

[ilduce349]

however that was a Japanese invasion of Mongolia, not a Mongolian invasion of Japan...

 

[W|M]

It was still a Mongol victory against Japan!

 

[Duke of Britain]

yes, a victory (take this Frenchies!)

 

[ilduce349]

It would be nice to accomplish something that the Great Khan never managed to do...

You already have India...

Other things they failed to do was conquer the Levant and Egypt and Hungary, Poland and Vietnam and Burma and Java.

They never tried Egypt, Burma or Java...
They did control Poland and Hungary, but pull back because their Gods told them to.

 

[j_mie6]

really! I didn't know that they would give up their empire because they were told to! (ignore the gods icaria..)

 

[ilduce349]

Yeah, according to their religion, all the generals of the khans empire were suppose to be at the crowning of Kublai. That meant all their forces had to pull out of Europe (which they were winning almost every battle) to go back to Mongolia, they lost significant ground each time this happened.

But most historians agree that had the Mongols not pulled out of Europe, they probably would have made it into Germany and Italy.

Your stuff about Khmer is kinda sad that you would call 100 soldiers an invasion. And the fact is Khmer did start sending tribute after 1285. So they technically won.

As for Egypt, those battles all took place in Israel, so I can't say they tried to invade Egypt considering they never got there...

 

[Jabarto]

But most historians agree that had the Mongols not pulled out of Europe, they probably would have made it into Germany and Italy.

They aren't very good historians then. The myth that only the death of the khan spared Europe is an amusing idea but it doesn't have a lot of basis in reality.

 

[inohotep]

europe at the time (especially eastern europe) were many small, independent countries and the mongols would need to battle each one, unlike China which fell quickly
its just like the conquistadors, aztecs: fell quikly without leader (like china and others) mayans: many small city states that would need a battle at each one (like eastern europe and italy)

 

[W|M]

Actually, the Native Americans fell mostly due to Eurasian illnesses, and the Aztecs were in fact an alliance of three different nations.

 

[ilduce349]

No, not according to their religion given that the Golden Horde had already converted to Islam by that point. The Mongols indicated some intention to remain in Hungary, by minting coin for instance, but the grazing land was insufficient, particularly in the winter, and the Mongols were never able to take the Hungarian strongholds.

Of course not, because Buda the second largest city in Hungary (at the time), is not considered a stronghold, simply because the Mongols were able to raze it, along with Pest and Eztergom 2 of the 10 largest cities in Hungary. However, according to the history textbook I have in front of me all of them were taken by the Mongols.

I find that unlikely. And I've rarely ever seen historians agree on anything, especially something so ridiculous.

By most, I really mean the ones I agree with. You clearly have never argued with me before...

Where did I call it an invasion?

You listed Khmer as one of the empires Mongolia failed to invade...
When I responded with they never tried, you posted that wiki article

Given that to reach Egypt you must pass through Greater Syria which was incidentally controlled by the Mamluks of Egypt the logical jump isn't particularly strenuous.

but Mamluk=/=Egypt...
Mamluk controlling and having the capital in Egypt is different from actually being Egypt. Given that all the fighting was in Syria, I am not incorrect when I say that they never got to Egypt

They aren't very good historians then. The myth that only the death of the khan spared Europe is an amusing idea but it doesn't have a lot of basis in reality.

Again, it is true. According to my text book:
"In half a week the Mongols had killed three armies of some 150,000 men leaving Europe wide open.
The Polish population among the river Oder was nearly exterminated. Pest was burned to the ground and, when the Dunabe froze in winter, Batu crossed on Christmas Day and destroyed what today is Estergom, while Kadan did likewise to Buda and Zagred. Mongol scouts reached the outskirts of Vienna, Venice and Prague, although a Croatian army beat them back at Grobnock, 50 miles from Trieste.
Deliverance came to Europe in one of two ways. The great Khan Ogedai died in 1241, and all Mongols had to return to kuriltai (political and military council) at Karakorum, 3,500 miles east in Mongolia. As a result the Mongols retreated and left Europe, but the exacted tribue for years. The new Khan Kuyuk decided to attack the Muslim world instead."
It then goes on to talk about and their invasion of the Mamluks, focusing on their decisive defeat at Ain Jalut.

Given that this was a book I was typing word for word, I appoligize for any typos. As I am dyslexic I probably made some that I didn't catch.

 

[Duke of Britain]

but Mamluk=/=Egypt...
Mamluk controlling and having the capital in Egypt is different from actually being Egypt. Given that all the fighting was in Syria, I am not incorrect when I say that they never got to Egypt

Wrong, the Mamluks were once egyptian slaves, at one point they got to control Egypt, never got to read much about them, but i do know something along that. to say they were not Egypt it's the same to say that Manchu China wasn't China because it owned parts of Mongolia and other areas outside of today China, or even Qin China (that was the Mongolian dinasty, right?). so at the time Syria was part of Egypt, there wasn't something like Israel,Syria or Lebanon.

Again, it is true. According to my text book:
"In half a week the Mongols had killed three armies of some 150,000 men leaving Europe wide open.
The Polish population among the river Oder was nearly exterminated. Pest was burned to the ground and, when the Dunabe froze in winter, Batu crossed on Christmas Day and destroyed what today is Estergom, while Kadan did likewise to Buda and Zagred. Mongol scouts reached the outskirts of Vienna, Venice and Prague, although a Croatian army beat them back at Grobnock, 50 miles from Trieste.
Deliverance came to Europe in one of two ways. The great Khan Ogedai died in 1241, and all Mongols had to return to kuriltai (political and military council) at Karakorum, 3,500 miles east in Mongolia. As a result the Mongols retreated and left Europe, but the exacted tribue for years. The new Khan Kuyuk decided to attack the Muslim world instead."
It then goes on to talk about and their invasion of the Mamluks, focusing on their decisive defeat at Ain Jalut.

Given that this was a book I was typing word for word, I appoligize for any typos. As I am dyslexic I probably made some that I didn't catch.

Do you really think if they came in large numbers to Vienna Europe would allow them to advance? there was the HRE, if they attacked something like Prague or Vienna (see Austrian-Ottoman wars, and well, the Turks came from around the Steppes, soo...) they would probably end up fighting quite a war, and if the Pope was able to call a crusade, with England and France joining they would have problems and the borders would probably never change around that area.
but anything would be possible, like some wars that ended up the way no one expected.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: the history discussion might be better off in the history subforum...

 

[ilduce349]

awwww, if we stop now it looks like I'm wrong (which granted I am about Egypt but not about Europe)

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: on second thought: split this discussion into its own thread

 

[Tee Kay]

They never tried Egypt, Burma or Java...

Oh yes they did. All three.

Yeah, according to their religion, all the generals of the khans empire were suppose to be at the crowning of Kublai. That meant all their forces had to pull out of Europe (which they were winning almost every battle) to go back to Mongolia, they lost significant ground each time this happened.

It's not so much religion as a succession custom, the kind that's been adapted from steppes tradition. The death of Ogedei Khan was an especially dangerous time since by this time the Mongols had split into multiple factions, each wanting their own preferred candidate to become Khan. For Batu, who nominally leads the Europe expedition, the succession would've seem a more important issue, and by withdrawing his army back to the steppes he wanted to influence the succession.

europe at the time (especially eastern europe) were many small, independent countries and the mongols would need to battle each one, unlike China which fell quickly

China did not fell quickly. The Mongol conquest was not completed until 1279, seventy years after Genghis Khan's first forays into Xi Xia and Jin, and almost 20 years after Kublai became Khan.

Actually, the Native Americans fell mostly due to Eurasian illnesses, and the Aztecs were in fact an alliance of three different nations.

Not the mention various subject nations who rebelled against the Aztecs at the first opportunity and essentially gave Cortez several free armies to play with.

By most, I really mean the ones I agree with. You clearly have never argued with me before...

Then it's not really "most historians", is it?

"In half a week the Mongols had killed three armies of some 150,000 men leaving Europe wide open.

Well, firstly, the Mongols were already in Europe. Secondly, it's not like those 150,000 men were all that Europe had to defend the continent.

Wrong, the Mamluks were once egyptian slaves

Actually they weren't for the most part native Egyptians but rather imported slaves, commonly Circassians.

 

[ilduce349]

Oh yes they did. All three.

It's not so much religion as a succession custom, the kind that's been adapted from steppes tradition. The death of Ogedei Khan was an especially dangerous time since by this time the Mongols had split into multiple factions, each wanting their own preferred candidate to become Khan. For Batu, who nominally leads the Europe expedition, the succession would've seem a more important issue, and by withdrawing his army back to the steppes he wanted to influence the succession.

But had he not, he had already destroy most of the HREs armies, and just had to siege a few cities to destroy it. Had he stayed, much of Europe would have been Mongolia within a few years.

China did not fell quickly. The Mongol conquest was not completed until 1279, seventy years after Genghis Khan's first forays into Xi Xia and Jin, and almost 20 years after Kublai became Khan.

China was two empires, the Jin empire fell in 1219. The Song Empire fell in 1279. The China Genghis invaded fell in 13 years, I'd call that rather quickly.

Not the mention various subject nations who rebelled against the Aztecs at the first opportunity and essentially gave Cortez several free armies to play with.

when you include the number of rebels Cortez had fighting with him, its not as impressive as it sounds.

Then it's not really "most historians", is it?

Well historians that I don't agree with aren't historians in my books. So imo most historians agree...

Well, firstly, the Mongols were already in Europe. Secondly, it's not like those 150,000 men were all that Europe had to defend the continent.

But those soldiers were most of HRE's army, and so most of Germany was open for a Mongol invasion. After that its just France, England, Iberia and Southern Italy.

 

[Dachs]

Again, it is true. According to my text book:
"In half a week the Mongols had killed three armies of some 150,000 men leaving Europe wide open.
The Polish population among the river Oder was nearly exterminated. Pest was burned to the ground and, when the Dunabe froze in winter, Batu crossed on Christmas Day and destroyed what today is Estergom, while Kadan did likewise to Buda and Zagred. Mongol scouts reached the outskirts of Vienna, Venice and Prague, although a Croatian army beat them back at Grobnock, 50 miles from Trieste.
Deliverance came to Europe in one of two ways. The great Khan Ogedai died in 1241, and all Mongols had to return to kuriltai (political and military council) at Karakorum, 3,500 miles east in Mongolia. As a result the Mongols retreated and left Europe, but the exacted tribue for years. The new Khan Kuyuk decided to attack the Muslim world instead."

Let's see. The army numbers are wrong, dead wrong. The extermination of the Silesian Poles didn't actually happen. Esztergom was sacked, but the town survived and people continued to live there; it just declined in importance in favor of other regional centers. Buda and Agram were in similar straits. I really don't see anything here that makes the Mongols out to be invincible world-conquerors that would have wiped the Euros out and conquered the whole continent.

But had he not, he had already destroy most of the HREs armies, and just had to siege a few cities to destroy it. Had he stayed, much of Europe would have been Mongolia within a few years.

But those soldiers were most of HRE's army, and so most of Germany was open for a Mongol invasion. After that its just France, England, Iberia and Southern Italy.

No. First of all, "most of the HRE's armies" were not destroyed. At all. 150,000 men were not killed, 150,000 men did not even fight, and 150,000 men wasn't the entire army of the united Holy Roman Empire (which wasn't united, but whatever). The decentralized nature of pretty much every European medieval polity meant that there was not just any one field army to destroy before you emptied the country of fighting men. You had to slog through innumerable smaller forces, which is one of the many reasons why nobody even tried to reduce the entire Holy Roman Empire by conquest. Secondly, the HRE was full of fortified posts and cities, and was, ah, quite large. This isn't a game of Civilization, here, chief. (Or Medieval II: Total War.) You can't just beat up a field army and besiege a few cities and boom, you've conquered Germany. And thirdly, even if the first two things were true (they're not), Germany is far from being all of Europe. Scandinavia, France, Italy, Spain, the British Isles, the Balkans...what about those?

China was two empires, the Jin empire fell in 1219. The Song Empire fell in 1279. The China Genghis invaded fell in 13 years, I'd call that rather quickly.

Ever looked at a map of the Jin compared to a map of the Song?

Well historians that I don't agree with aren't historians in my books. So imo most historians agree...

Oh, well, never mind. No point in discussing anything with the Master and Arbiter of All World History here. He knows better than anybody else in academia what's right and wrong, despite his chief experience with history having been his high school textbook.