AHQ: Is the Mongol conquest of Eurasia ASB?

[MrKrabsWorstNightmare]

For example, if we were in ATL, and the Mongol invasion never happened

And someone proposes the idea “A bunch of tribes north of China, one of the most advanced and prosperous empires at the time, unifies and creates the largest contigous empire in history”

Would it be called ASB? How about other events that happened in our timeline?

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

This is a level of meta I'm too tired to think about.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

For example, if we were in ATL, and the Mongol invasion never happened

And someone proposes the idea “A bunch of tribes north of China, one of the most advanced and prosperous empires at the time, unifies and creates the largest contigous empire in history”

Would it be called ASB? How about other events that happened in our timeline?

That depends on just how big potential rivals for the category of largest contiguous Empire was, but I'll weigh in and say it'd be considered plausable. After all, China has experienced fractures and extended periods of internal warfare before, steppe nomads made impressive showings in conquest (Huns and Magyars, for instance) and if we assumed the lion's share of that Empire was Siberia and Centeral Asia it's not like they'd be running up against tough political rivals or geographic barriers.

 

[BBadolato]

For example, if we were in ATL, and the Mongol invasion never happened

And someone proposes the idea “A bunch of tribes north of China, one of the most advanced and prosperous empires at the time, unifies and creates the largest contigous empire in history”

Would it be called ASB? How about other events that happened in our timeline?

No, the Mongols look more like a case of the Oda clan under Nobunaga during the Sengoku Period. Basically, an unlikely power rises from superior leadership and more importantly very lucky breaks that leave few obstacles to stop them when it should otherwise be unlikely.

Edit: Also a fair deal of minor Chinese dynasties tended to descendants of foreign tribesmen.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

No, it was plausible.

For several reasons, the Mongols had innovative warfare, enough organization and the will to go toe-to-toe with the great empires of the time. It was not the first, and certainly not the last time, that mobile semi-nomad conquerors brought down rich empires. Even in China.

The sheer scope of the Mongol Conquests is, of course, fascinating, and it was a rather unique event in history (aren't them always?). But it's not implausible.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

The Mongol conquests were plausible. Arguably, although bombastic, the Mongol expansions were just the formalization of 800 years of previous nomadic expansion by Turkic and Tungusic peoples. The Jin Dynasty, Cumans, and Khwarezmians had already "pre-conquered" sedentary lands ready to be usurped. Someone was going to unite the steppe, it was just a matter of when.

 

[LSCatilina]

There's a lot of difference between "heh, that was some epic/unexpected event" or "nobody could have expected this to happen" and "this is why it might have happened once you got most of the data and informations avaible".
History, by definition is an analytic or interpretative science : you begin from biased or incomplete point of view (which doesn't mean wrong) or sheer data (such as evidence of climat change) you have to consider and ponder.

Now, there's another consideration : it happened, contrary to all TL present there. Meaning that it's the standard from which historical consideration as much as allohistorical consideration would be judged : any TL deciding of a rough PoD and ignoring all of the context is then implausible because it doesn't holds much to the standard. You might say that every TL on AH.com is then implausible, and from an historical view it's not only this but impssible. Even if we don't know exactly why, it happened, it's settled. Predictive and explorative science can breach their own observations ("nothing is quicker than the speed of light") because it's not their departure point strictly speaking. In history, it's the alpha and omega,the departure point and where you must arrive.

Of course, holding allohistorical works, which are narrative and not scientific (even if they can support some historical or philosophical points, which I think is underused nowadays) to historical standards would be insane : it's why we say that such and such ATL is plausible or implausible, less as an historical statement, than a narrative statement about the suspension of disbelief from the point of view of someone with more specific historical knowledge.

Back to Mongols. A lot of people there have and will point why Mongol Conquests did make sense. Other might point reasons why they stopped as they did. It's interpretation and based on academic or pseudo-academic consensus, but that's an interpretation on real.
Interpretating data and sources AGAINST the idea Mongol conquests were made on such a scale is litterally impossible. A mu-koan of sorts.
It doesn't mean it couldn't have changed, notably because History isn't a mechanical happenstance but because humans that make it have, for a given variety, a sense of their own possibilities and history and might try to change it. It didn't, tough, and the complex network of events went trough what happened making it plausible by the virtue of being the only real, existing feature.

ASB, as plausibility/implausibility, when it comes to describe or label a timeline; is a narrative consideration and not an historical one : you can simply not apply it meaningfully there.

 

[Marc]

It is relatively easy to construct a historical model that has the Mongols effectively conquering for some time Eastern Europe; and one that results in the Byzantines ending up as they did circa 1400 CE, i.e. reduced to the City and a scattering of nominal holdings such as the Moera (Not enough is done with the Mora; because it is a sad coda?)
Western Europe is more plausible than many seem to think. There are some logistical and tactical challenges, but they thrived on that (keep in mind the large numbers of very militarily sophisticated.Chinese in their army). In the end, for the Mongols it comes down to incentive rather than limitations. Iberia and the British Isles could escape, but the heartland - Germany and France - it would be an interesting speculation.

 

[Kyro92]

No, it was plausible.

For several reasons, the Mongols had innovative warfare, enough organization and the will to go toe-to-toe with the great empires of the time.

True, but we only know that particular package of innovations in warfare and organization was plausible because it happened. In a TL where those stars didn't fall into alignment, saying "it's plausible because in my TL the Mongols implement a package of innovations in warfare and organization at just the right time" would seem like handwavium.

 

[Garetor]

But there's tons of other examples of truly great generals going way beyond their culture's normal pattern of conquest. Greeks spread through colonization and walled cities, growing their influence slowly along coastlines...until Alexander built a pan-Hellenic army that could conquer as far as it could march. Romans would usually snip off bits and pieces at a time, clipping provinces and and minor kingdoms through quick wars, clientships, and economic co-option...until Pompey and Caesar devoured Asia and Gaul in big fat chomps. Arabs amounted to little beyond being the subject of greater empires until you had Khalid Ibn Al Walid kicking everyone's ass and making it look easy. You get the idea.

In a world where Genghis, Timur, and the Manchus never did their thing, it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to look at what, say, the Seljuq turks did and say "Well, if you could wed that kind of mobility, valor, and light-handed governance to one *really* great commander, you might have an army that could quickly overrun vast swathes of Eurasia!"

The part that might seem handwavy is giving the Mongols Genghis Khan, Subutai, Muquali and Jebe all in the same lifetime! That's like giving the English Marlborough, William Marshall, and Wellington under the command of Richard the Lionheart.

 

[alexmilman]

For example, if we were in ATL, and the Mongol invasion never happened

And someone proposes the idea “A bunch of tribes north of China, one of the most advanced and prosperous empires at the time, unifies and creates the largest contigous empire in history”

Would it be called ASB? How about other events that happened in our timeline?

In case you missed it, there were other tribes creating the huge empires (even not as big) prior to the Mongols. For example, there was Turic Khaganate.

And, if we remove "north of China" requirement, the Arabs would also fit the bill.

Admittedly, empire of the Huns and Khazars Kahanate were smaller in size but still quite significant.

Strictly speaking the "Rurikid Empire" (Kievan Rus) also was a low probability case and so was its eventual expansion all the way to the Pacific coast.

 

[Historyman 14]

I will say this: It be truly nightmarish, yet equally interesting to watch this Eurasia Mongol Empire collapse inside and out, let alone trying to rule it given it sheer size in the lead up to total collapse.

Conquering and wars, that's the easy part. Trying to rule all of Eurasia in any meaningful way would be ASB.

 

[alexmilman]

In a world where Genghis, Timur, and the Manchus never did their thing, it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to look at what, say, the Seljuq turks did and say "Well, if you could wed that kind of mobility, valor, and light-handed governance to one *really* great commander, you might have an army that could quickly overrun vast swathes of Eurasia!"

Well, this was definitely applicable to Timur but not to Genghis. Timur was doing his conquests personally while Genghis was often delegating these functions to his generals giving them a lot of freedom of action both military and political. Which, IMO, puts him well above Napoleon who almost always had problems when leaving his marshals to act on their own.

The part that might seem handwavy is giving the Mongols Genghis Khan, Subutai, Muquali and Jebe all in the same lifetime! That's like giving the English Marlborough, William Marshall, and Wellington under the command of Richard the Lionheart.

Errrr.... AFAIK, William Marshall was а great knight but not necessarily the great general and Richard was at best a capable tactician (with a rather lousy temper), well below Marlborough's or Wellington's level so your schema is not a good analogy. BTW, I'd suspect that two dukes you mentioned would start quarreling with each other (which would not happen in the Mongolian army).

Of course, it could be convincingly argued that Genghis was not a great field commander but he definitely was the greatest military organizer capable of both creating a superb military machine and finding and promoting the most capable subordinates possible (AFAIK, the last thing did not quite apply to any of the English personages you mentioned).

 

[alexmilman]

I will say this: It be truly nightmarish, yet equally interesting to watch this Eurasia Mongol Empire collapse inside and out, yet alone trying to rule it given it sheer size in leads to total collapse.

Conquering and wars, that's the easy part. Trying to rule all of Eurasia in any meaningful way would be ASB.

Yes, and the OTL is a confirmation of your words. It gave the 1st huge crack during the reign of the 4rd Great Khan when Batu officially became almost independent (or even earlier when he pretty much refused to obey the 3rd Great Khan). Then you have wars between the GH and Ilkhanate, wars between Khubilai and Aric Buga, etc.

 

[Agra]

They'd call it a wank, not ASB.

 

[Historyman 14]

Yes, and the OTL is a confirmation of your words. It gave the 1st huge crack during the reign of the 4rd Great Khan when Batu officially became almost independent (or even earlier when he pretty much refused to obey the 3rd Great Khan). Then you have wars between the GH and Ilkhanate, wars between Khubilai and Aric Buga, etc.

Winners/the ones that come out the best would be Iberia and the British Isles, and Pagan Lithuania of all things in Europe. Same for say Coptic Egypt and Japan.

 

[alexmilman]

No, it was plausible.

For several reasons, the Mongols had innovative warfare, enough organization and the will to go toe-to-toe with the great empires of the time. It was not the first, and certainly not the last time, that mobile semi-nomad conquerors brought down rich empires. Even in China.

The sheer scope of the Mongol Conquests is, of course, fascinating, and it was a rather unique event in history (aren't them always?). But it's not implausible.

Well, as far as the innovations were involved, it seems that Genghis was building his military system with a strong reliance upon what was already there like the decimal system and specific tactical methods. He did not make any changes in the existing equipment or weaponry either. However, one of the critical things he did was to use the existing system outside the traditional tribal organization. This "trifle" allowed him to introduce uniformity in organization, training and military action and to promote the capable people regardless of their pedigree or tribal association, just based on their merits and loyalty (Muqali started as Genghis' personal slave, Subotai was from Uriankhai clan, a group of Siberian forest-dwellers, Jebe initially fought against Genghis and even managed to wound him during the Battle of the Thirteen Sides before coming to his side).

Of course, what Genghis and his generals managed to build based on the traditional system was quite unique both tactically and strategically.

 

[kalamona]

Well, as far as the innovations were involved, it seems that Genghis was building his military system with a strong reliance upon what was already there like the decimal system and specific tactical methods. He did not make any changes in the existing equipment or weaponry either. However, one of the critical things he did was to use the existing system outside the traditional tribal organization. This "trifle" allowed him to introduce uniformity in organization, training and military action and to promote the capable people regardless of their pedigree or tribal association, just based on their merits and loyalty (Muqali started as Genghis' personal slave, Subotai was from Uriankhai clan, a group of Siberian forest-dwellers, Jebe initially fought against Genghis and even managed to wound him during the Battle of the Thirteen Sides before coming to his side).

Of course, what Genghis and his generals managed to build based on the traditional system was quite unique both tactically and strategically.

Uhmm.. Romans?

 

[alexmilman]

Uhmm.. Romans?

If something is unique it does not mean that something else can't be unique in its own way. The Roman and Mongolian systems had been quite different and meaningful comparison could be only with other nomadic military systems.

 

[kalamona]

If something is unique it does not mean that something else can't be unique in its own way. The Roman and Mongolian systems had been quite different and meaningful comparison could be only with other nomadic military systems.

Dunno, decimal system and the integration of othet tribes, even elevating them into high position is not really unheard of in other nomadic\steppe tribes. Iwould say the mongolian system was the norm since long before the mongolians, but they had the most impact with it..