Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
  1. #241
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by ashblond View Post
    What was the 13th century Europe landscape? You didn't give any explanation.
    You don't know about the terrain, yet you keep dismissing it as a factor?

    The Huns reached Chalon, France from east.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...launian_Plains
    And were defeated. Partly by the European geography that negated the Huns traditional advantages in battle.

    The Arabs reached Tours, France from south.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
    Requires a navy, leaving the Mongols open to attacks from European navies.

    I've been arguing that you need a navy to make inroads, the terrain isn't suited for inland cavalry marches as you can't feed your horses. Europe is conquered from the coast inwards, as the sea is your supply line.

    The Mongols invaded the whole Eastern Europe
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe
    The part of Europe suited to massive cavalry formations was beaten by the Mongols as their advantage could be deployed there. HUngary is a goner, it has no chance, the regions bordering Hungary are equally screwed.

    So what is the unsuited land for cavalry in Europe in your theory?
    Germany or any of the other forested or mountain regions that require you to bring your own fodder.

    I had no intention to insult anyone, but merely point out the lack of logic in your post.
    Maybe I would agree that Mongols couldn't conqueror Europe because of logistics, diplomacy or other reasons.
    And certainly they couldn't rule long in Europe, just like they couldn't rule long in China or Arabia.
    But saying Europe is not suited for horses or cavalry and bringing up navy is just unfounded.
    Europe isn't suited for large scale cavalry warfare, that is precisely the reason why even the wealthiest nations didn't bother to develop cavalry forces along the Asian lines. The European armies knew that fighting Asian cavalry troops in Asia would almost certainly lead to defeat, you can't kill someone that you can't hit, but there was no need to use those tactics in Europe as you can't get away far enough to make mobile missile troops effective.

    Navies are incredibly important in European warfare for the opposite reason that mass cavalry aren't important. They are the European mobile forces.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    Not a problem that the Mongols hadn't faced and solved already. In fact, because of their constantly changing tactics, the Nature of the forests in Europe would actually give the Mongols an advantage.
    Why does fighting Europeans, in a European environment and having to use European-style tactics, give the Mongols an advantage? You are casually removing their main strength, then expecting Europeans to roll over to other Europeans just because the Mongols are in charge.

    /facepalm Cavalry is a French word that comes from Italian. If Cavalry wasn't important in Europe then the word would be "морин хуур" morin khuur the Mongol word. We use the word in English from the source of the concept. French Cavalry was the real deal, Knights were very important in European warfare.
    Massed horse archers weren't, nor was mobility the aim of the French-style of cavalry. The French used them as a battering ram, not a mosquito as the Mongols did.

    Look at Agincourt - that would never have happened to the Mongols as they were too mobile, it shows a fatal flaw in the European system of cavalry. However the Mongols would need far more space than a European cavalry would do, which is the flaw in their system.

    you make my head hurt, Romans built roads and bridges through out all of western Europe, many roads of Europe today are still along the same paths the Romans originally built. Further East where the Romans didn't invade, the local populations still built roads everywhere. It's not until you get east do the roads run out. But then the Mongols took all of that.
    That's irrelevant, the main transport systems were waterways. At no point have I said that nothing travelled overland.

    In order for this hypothetical situation to be contemplated, you have to find the one thing that caused it not to happen. I disagree that it was the succession crisis that caused the Mongols from a proper European campaign, it was the failure in Japan and the loss of 150,000 men at arms. That crushed the Mongols will to continue. Had that campaign not taken place, or had they won, they would have continued westward. You can see this because the Successor Empires that came out of the Mongol Empire did just that.
    No, everything else in history stays the same. You don't get to rewrite all of history in a hypothetical, otherwise it gets ludicrous.

  2. #242
    Legendary! Gothicshark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leftcoast 2 blocks from the beach, down the street from a green haze called Venice.
    Posts
    6,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Some people realy do have a huge hardon on Mongols...

    About the so much quoted battle of Mohi. Mongols suffered serious losses in it too and contrary to popular belief, their manpower was not limitless. Hungary never did fully fall, since bunch of places held against the siege , and the Mongols started to get bogged down in them.
    Please remember that further in Europe there would be even more fortified places and castles.
    They would simply fully bog down in long sieges sooner or later.
    Not a 'Hard on' it's just a realistic view. The thing was Compared to Asia, and Arab lands, Europe was poor, well defended with castles, and had a small population. The gains would not have been worth the effort, until Byzantium fell. Which never happened under Mongol rule, the next empire to come did take Byzantium, and they took 1/4th of Europe as well. Only they decided to make treaties with the major powers instead of conquest.

    Had the Mongols not fallen apart, had the mongols been successful in Japan, they would have eventually moved into Europe. Although they would have had to find a reason other than treasure, and riches to do so.

    I mean they had the wealthiest nation on the Planet and control of half of the Know Planet, what more could they want?

    I personally see the Battle of Mohi as the reason the Mongols put off any serious effort into Europe, they won, and nearly wiped Hungry off the map, and had nothing to show for it. It was a long had war, and no riches or treasure.

    Think of it like doing the Hardest mythic raid in WOW, only to never get any rewards for it. Basically Europe wasn't worth the effort.

  3. #243
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    Basically Europe wasn't worth the effort.
    For the difficulties they'd have incurred, it certainly wasnt worth attempting.

  4. #244
    Legendary! Gothicshark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leftcoast 2 blocks from the beach, down the street from a green haze called Venice.
    Posts
    6,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post

    No, everything else in history stays the same. You don't get to rewrite all of history in a hypothetical, otherwise it gets ludicrous.
    I'm only making one more reply to you.

    1. The major strength of the Mongols was not horse men. It was Public relations. You are thinking of the Huns. The Mongols used social tactics to get large kingdoms to fully surrender and join them. They had a few very brutal battles, and a lot of everyone else surrenders and joins. They added the strength of a region to their own strengths as they moved forward.

    It wasn't Mongols who built the ships used to Take China, it was Chinese merchants and sailors who did that. It wasn't Mongols who sacked the Persian Empire, it was Turks under Mongol leadership. It wasn't Mongols who fought and destroyed Hungry, it was a mix of Mongols and Russians.

    If the Mongols actually made the effort, they would shatter one kingdom, offer something to the next, and shatter the third. If they made it to Spain, the majority of their forces would be French and Germans. It was how they did things. it was why a small tribe from a plains area north west of China was able to take half the known world. They didn't do it alone.

    2. The reason they faltered, the reason they stopped the conquest, the reason they broke up into several smaller empires, was one simple fact. They lost 150,000 men at arms to a typhoon off the coast of Japan. it's the only moment in their history that if it didn't happen as history says, would have made a difference. The Golden Horde stopped, because destroying Hungry was difficult with no rewards after they won. It literally wasn't worth moving further west for the Golden Horde. To the south 100 years later, the successor Empire made up of Turks took South East Europe, and made treaties with the rest. They saw a value in taking Europe that the Golden Horde missed, only they were too few in numbers to make a serious push.

    Had the Mongol Empire won against Japan, or if they never made the Effort, they would have pushed west. With the knowledge that it was indeed going to be a long and hard fight. However, they tried to take Japan, and a typhoon sunk the Largest fleet ever made until the 1940s.

    That is all i am going to say further to you, I'm tired of this banter with you, and I really dislike how insulting you are.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    Not a 'Hard on' it's just a realistic view. The thing was Compared to Asia, and Arab lands, Europe was poor, well defended with castles, and had a small population. The gains would not have been worth the effort, until Byzantium fell. Which never happened under Mongol rule, the next empire to come did take Byzantium, and they took 1/4th of Europe as well. Only they decided to make treaties with the major powers instead of conquest.

    Had the Mongols not fallen apart, had the mongols been successful in Japan, they would have eventually moved into Europe. Although they would have had to find a reason other than treasure, and riches to do so.

    I mean they had the wealthiest nation on the Planet and control of half of the Know Planet, what more could they want?

    I personally see the Battle of Mohi as the reason the Mongols put off any serious effort into Europe, they won, and nearly wiped Hungry off the map, and had nothing to show for it. It was a long had war, and no riches or treasure.

    Think of it like doing the Hardest mythic raid in WOW, only to never get any rewards for it. Basically Europe wasn't worth the effort.
    I agree.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli..._Mongol_Empire

    The mongols' focus was always China.
    They started invasion of China in 1236 and finished in 1276. It was the longest campaign of Mongol Empire.

    And it was also by far the hardest campaign the mongol army ever hard. Their main forces were deployed in China. Their great Khan, Mongke, died during battle in China, then Kublai took the lead.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_China

    The Mongol force which invaded southern China was far greater than the force they sent to invade the Middle East in 1256.

    The Song forces were equipped with the best technology available at the time, such as an ample supply of gunpowder weapons like fire lances, rockets and flamethrowers. The fierce resistance of the Song forces resulted in the Mongols having to fight the most difficult war in all of their conquests.[62]

    The Chinese offered the fiercest resistance of among all the Mongols fought, the Mongols required every single advantage they could gain and "every military artifice known at that time" in order to win. They looked to peoples they already conquered to acquire any military advantage.

    After China campaign, Mongols had conquered all the major powers in Eurasia, and Kublai was content to be Chinese emperor.

    And I agree on that, 1 of the mongol empire's strongest points is diplomacy and their ability to learn weapons, tactics, and strategy from their enemies and integrate into their own army. They were very similar to Romans on this quality.

  6. #246
    Its true that Europe's greatest defense was its lack of wealth. I don't know how you can say that diplomacy was their strength though. The empire melted in part because everyone hated them. The only "diplomacy" they used was terror. People hated the Mongols. There is a reason "mongoloid" is a derisive term. It was just the most successful in a long history of short lived steppe empires.

    They might have conquered Europe. Again they lost in Egypt, and that was at the height of their power. To say the Mongols "integrated" people is a stretch. Murdering everyone except those you can impress into service isn't a great way to run an empire. Hell the fact they didn't conquer Europe is precisely because they had such a garbage bin ruling system. Would they have won in open battle? Most likely yes. On the one hand the Europeans had much better fortifications, and more of them, then most. On the other hand the hashinin or whatever the hell it was in the Middle East didn't do to well and they had a supposedly impregnable fortress.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    The Ottomans of the 15th Century were descended from the Turks of the 13th Century who were the first people the Mongols incorporated into their Armies. Learn the History.
    *Talks about Ottoman state and how that state conquered Asia Minor after Mongols split (and mentions how the Turks that were part of the Mongol Horde became Ottomans only after that split), then makes an argument how said state would have conquered all of Europe had the Mongol Empire not split.*

    *Is reminded that Ottoman state only came to be after the split and that they were vying for control of Anatolia with Mongol Ilkhanate from the dawn of their statehood.*

    "Learn the History"

    Lel

    Unless your lack of comprehension of linearity of time and chronology of events escape the confines of your head, spread throughout the world and magically alter reality, the narrative you tried to push there is indefensible and is the textbook example of inane.

    The Ottoman Empire only came to be because the Mongol Empire fractured and the Ilkhanate was already losing power in Anatolia. The group of Turks that made it came to western Anatolia only after the Mongol Empire split. Come back to me when you can somehow prove there would be an Ottoman Empire had the Mongol Empire not split and that the Mongols would help Ottomans (or do anything else for them to be a relevant factor in Ottoman conquests) in "taking all of Europe".

    The Oghuz Turks that moved to western Anatolia (not the first Oghuz Turks in the region no matter how you stretch it anyway) in the late 13th century were descendants of the Oghuz Yabgu State that was conquered by the Mongols, wooptie doo. Timurid Empire was made by the descendants of Turco-Mongol people that were part of the Mongol Empire too. Timur's entire plan was the restoration of the Mongol Empire. And Mughal Empire was descended from Timurid Empire.

    Mughal Empire managed to conquer most of India, where the Mongol Empire has failed (so like Ottomans in Europe). But they didn't reach the southern tip of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Or Ceylon. According to your temporally-impaired logic, due to Mughal Empire being made of people descendant from the people earlier ruled by the Mongol Empire, Mughal Empire would "have taken all of India" (and Indochina, because why not) had the Mongol Empire not split. Because fuck causality and the fact there would be no Mughal Empire in such a situation.

    Or to make an even more stupid example. Under Attila Huns were spreading throughout Europe and western Asia north of Caucasus. Hungarians claim that they descended from Huns. So according to your logic, had the Hunnic Empire not collapsed after Attila's death, Hungary (not Hunnic empire, despite Hungarians arriving in Pannonia few hundred years after that) would have conquered all of Europe!


    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    To the south 100 years later, the successor Empire made up of Turks took South East Europe, and made treaties with the rest. They saw a value in taking Europe that the Golden Horde missed, only they were too few in numbers to make a serious push.
    Weirdly enough, they claimed successorship of the Caliphate and not the Mongol Empire. And most of their territories at the height of their power never belonged to the Mongol Empire. Yup, Ottomans are totes legit successors of Mongols. So is Turkmenistan I suppose (at least it geographically overlaps in 100%).
    Last edited by Mehrunes; 2015-10-28 at 12:59 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  8. #248
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    I doubt it. As you push further westward into Europe, much more of the land is heavily forested, and not really well suited for a horse archer army. They probably could have conquered southwards into formerly Roman territory (although good luck getting past the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople without cannons), maybe even back north through France. But I think they would have had just as much trouble as the Romans did with the Germanic peoples.
    I agree with this. The Mongols relied heavily on their horses for their conquests. And also for the same reasons they finally lost their steam is why they would fail in Europe also. The Islamic tried to push into France and got their butts kicked and eventually where driven out of Spain. They lacked the disciplined and well trained armies Europe could muster when faced with a emergency.
    That same type of situation would have stopped the Mongols eventually in Europe also.

  9. #249
    The conquest of China Sung Dynasty was completed by Kublai Khan. His real power was limited to Mongolia and China. He had little control of the western Mongols.

    Cavalry only played a support role in the conquest of China. The majority of the Mongol’s conquest of China was spent at the siege of Xiangyang (1267 to 1273) with an earlier siege from 1257 to 1259. Think of Xiangyang as the chinese version of the Alamo, except it had 10-meter double walls with 150-meter moat, and surrounded on three sides by mountains and the Han river to the south.

    The Sung emperor at that time (Duzong) was weak and incompetent. Supposedly, when Xiangyang fell, the news was deliberately hidden from Duzong by his court. Weak emperor, political infighting between commanders, no reinforcement, lack of resupply and introduction of trebuchet combined lead to the downfall of Xiangyang.

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The conquest of China Sung Dynasty was completed by Kublai Khan. His real power was limited to Mongolia and China. He had little control of the western Mongols.

    Cavalry only played a support role in the conquest of China. The majority of the Mongol’s conquest of China was spent at the siege of Xiangyang (1267 to 1273) with an earlier siege from 1257 to 1259. Think of Xiangyang as the chinese version of the Alamo, except it had 10-meter double walls with 150-meter moat, and surrounded on three sides by mountains and the Han river to the south.

    The Sung emperor at that time (Duzong) was weak and incompetent. Supposedly, when Xiangyang fell, the news was deliberately hidden from Duzong by his court. Weak emperor, political infighting between commanders, no reinforcement, lack of resupply and introduction of trebuchet combined lead to the downfall of Xiangyang.
    Yea, Kublai Khan pretty much single handedly destroyed the mongol empire. He rose to great khan by assassination, black mail, and coercion. After that the khans were never willing to chose another great khan.

  11. #251
    no because White
    The most trusted and reliable mainstream republican website: http://Dailystormer.com

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    And the Ottomans during the Mongol years were Turks in the Mongol Horde.
    If you go a bit earlier than Mongol Empire

    The Mongols during the Turkic Hanlıks in Central Asia were part of these Hanlıks as Turks were rulers, therefore, Mongols are descendant of Turks and Mongol Horde was in fact continuation of Turkish states in Central Asia

    ^
    This is your logic. It's non sense, you should drop it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    The Ottomans of the 15th Century were descended from the Turks of the 13th Century who were the first people the Mongols incorporated into their Armies. Learn the History.
    Plainly wrong. Ottomans were part of previous Turkish Empire, i.e., Seljuk Empire.
    Last edited by Kuntantee; 2015-10-29 at 07:00 AM.

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Exception View Post
    Do you think the Mongols would have managed to conquer Western Europe had they not needed to step back due to their succession crisis? Or do you think the at the time fragmented and unprepared European nations would have still managed to ward them off?
    Jumping in late here. I'd ask a parallel question. Could Alexander have taken over Asia if he hadn't been mortally wounded?

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by hellhamster View Post
    1206 was literally the fourth Crusade age. Technology was not at a low point, what makes you think that, because someone later dubbed that age as "dark"?
    Dark ages was named that because, because technology kinda halted for 800 years.
    We were extremely religious and stupid. And science was mostly frowned upon if not linked to demonic shit.
    But yeah ok

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnkie View Post
    Dark ages was named that because, because technology kinda halted for 800 years.
    We were extremely religious and stupid. And science was mostly frowned upon if not linked to demonic shit.
    But yeah ok
    Except it was the clergy which preserved and translated much knowledge. And by 1206, the year mentioned in the quote you responded to, actual universities were popping up around Europe.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    Im not saying the world did. Europe took a hit and stagnated while other regions advanced, and those regions were defeated.
    That is the narrative of the self-named "Age of Enlightment" which also coined the term "Dark Ages" to contrast themselves against, it is not actually accurate as we know today. People had the longest and most secure lifes (on average) during those times (as can be shown by examining their remains) compared to the times before and afterwards. The common people lived pretty well during the "Dark Ages", it is just that they weren't as easily exploited (courious how that goes together) and less really rich people and less exceptional arts were produced that are still around today. Especially, there was less literature produced - which is the measurement used to establish that time as the "Dark Ages".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nadiru View Post
    The Mongols could've made it to the French-German border, but as a primarily cavalry force, Italy and France would be relatively safe. Once the North European Plain ends, Europe gets pretty rocky and rough pretty fast.
    Most of what is the East of Germany today was outright swamps with just a few islands of dry land, not plains - those are partly artificial -, that would have been a problem for horses.

  17. #257
    The mongols would have had to hide behind their own great wall if they ever tried to attack Europeans.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    Sounds like domination. I dont know why so many people think Europe is that unique, just look at the mongol track record.
    Why did all those really wiedespread conquests only ever happen in Asia and never in Europe?
    Part of it is the samps - that aren't around today, because we got rid of them after the middle ages.
    (Unfortunately now that we "save" too much water where it is in abundance some of them threathen to come back, most notably in Berlin where freshwater wells took care of the drainage for the last 150 years an now that not enough water is consumed anymore and prices skyrocked due to that some parts of the city have only <15cm space between the surface and the groundwater.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    Civilizations that were far more prosperous were destroyed. I mean Geez France totally compares to China back then *eye roll*
    You mean civilizations that were prosperous because they were made up out of lands that were easy to conquer and unite?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •