Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Limits of Mongol Power Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 16:31 |
The Mongols halted at the German forests reluctant to enter. The would only go into Northern India, they wouldn't venture into SE Asia at all.
A lot of historians wonder why and debate why this was. Indians too tough for Mongols, Europe only a raid not invasion, SE Asia not worth conquest and so on. There are numerous theories.
One thing that comes to mind to me is that all these theatres had a common factor, a rainy climate. Composite bows don't work in the rain. Was it a technological limitation that halted them?
Edited by Paul - 21-Mar-2008 at 16:32
|
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 17:33 |
Probably but South China is very rainy and they conquer it. In a military sense, is possible that out of certain regions when their traditional mounted warfare have no effect they needed different armies so with different human elements they could lost their edge. The exception is South China because they could conquer north China first so they could use human components in their armies who know the country.
Example: is irrelevant what can do the mongol cavalry in land if they depend of the naval support for fight in Japan.
Another point is the socio-political factor wich is, they were masters conquering steppe regions and highly developed states but against less centralized and unorganized political entities, plus a different geographical-military enviroment, like those of Western Europe and Southeast Asia they couldn't had the upper hand.
Probably we should include a mere distance factor, russian kingdoms with their relativelly primitive states and their forest couldn't resist in front of the mongols who have their strongest position in the ukrainian steppe.
All this points are reasons for admire mamluk Egypt: a highly developed country near the main mongol western centres in a region profitable for cavalry, close to cities wich could provide artillery and infantry to the mongols as northern chinese in the other side of the world provided for the conquest of southern China, and the egyptians could resist. Magnificient.
Only hypothesis.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 18:24 |
Traditionally for invaders from the west to conquer India
1) You have to cross the Khybar Pass, resistance there will be heavy and vicious. if you pass that
2) At the Jehlum River, unlike the Indus not really fordable. You cross that
3) Panipat, the high ground, the last obstacle. Breach that and you are the master of India.
The Mongols got stuck at the Jehlum, they were unable to cross it.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 18:45 |
Or you could go via the Bolan Pass.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 19:14 |
A huge desert, then a huge mountain range, followed by a huge unfordable river (as the Indus is at that point) followed by another desert. Yeah great going!
In the North, after the Khyabar pass the next obstacal is the Indus, which a that point is fordable in several places, the next real defendable point is the Jehlum. CRoss that and most of the Punjab at that point is flat with easily fordable rivers until you reach Panipat, which is a higher ground and thus he last defensible point in S Asia. You have out flanked all other defences.
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 20:12 |
A rainy, foggy clima is not just bad for bows, but for steppe horses too.
The german forest: if the rainy climatic was the reason (but I don't think so, f.e. the magyars reached the Atlantik in France), the mongols had used to wait until the winter: they went trough the ice of the danube in the winter of 1241/42 by Budapest, though the hungarians cutted the ice on their side to avoid this.
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 22:08 |
One property that people here did not mention is the nature of the mongol armies, these were mobile horse based armies, the only advantage the mongols ever had over their enemies is that they had just too many horses with them and horses are useless in the then thick central european plain forests, those forrests were not accessable in those days because no major trade roots crossed them at that time. as for India, well Sparten said they either passed the Khaybar pass which was near impossible, or take the Makran coast route where their horses will die of thirst and heat exhaustion, and even if they succeeded, the armies they will face are not like those they faced, they would face battle hardened troops with experienced generals.
AL-Jassas
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 23:09 |
^agree for most part. horsies couldn't go there
Originally posted by Paul
The Mongols halted at the German forests reluctant to enter. The would only go into Northern India, they wouldn't venture into SE Asia at all. |
they didn't really stopped, they just withdrew after raiding Poland and Hungary, it just looks as if they stopped there. but as for SE asia? i'm surprised, they defeated Burma in battle and made it tributary, Vietnam was ivnaded three times, they even landed on Java, how can yous ay they skipped SE asia? just because they left Thailand alone?
One thing that comes to mind to me is that all these theatres had a common factor, a rainy climate. Composite bows don't work in the rain. Was it a technological limitation that halted them?
|
i would rather think forrested/jungle regions are more a limitation to their horse armies than anything, they didn't expanded into Siberia afterall, in fact they were afraid of doing so.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 23:20 |
Originally posted by Ikki
All this points are reasons for admire mamluk Egypt: a highly developed country near the main mongol western centres in a region profitable for cavalry, close to cities wich could provide artillery and infantry to the mongols as northern chinese in the other side of the world provided for the conquest of southern China, and the egyptians could resist. Magnificient.
Only hypothesis. |
Originally posted by Sparten
The Mongols got stuck at the Jehlum, they were unable to cross it. |
in my opinion the Mamelukes of Egypt get far too much recognition and the Sultanate Delhi gets far too less, if any. the mamelukes were in a very favouable position. egypt is difficult to invade, the il-khans faced opposition by the Golden Horde and the Chaghatay khanate, and the only place to maintain a huge mounted arm was in Azerbaijan. Delhi however had to keep southern indians at bay while at the same time fencign off Mongol invasions from the chaghatay khanate from central asia, all the mongols had to do was cross the mountains and march into Delhi, soemthing so many conquerors have done before.
Edited by Temujin - 21-Mar-2008 at 23:21
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 18:02 |
Originally posted by Temujin
they didn't really stopped, they just withdrew after raiding Poland and Hungary, it just looks as if they stopped there. but as for SE asia? i'm surprised, they defeated Burma in battle and made it tributary, Vietnam was ivnaded three times, they even landed on Java, how can yous ay they skipped SE asia? just because they left Thailand alone?
|
Burma they only took the Northern tip, Vietnam they were quickly defeated. Thailand was only a few minor kingdoms. The Kmer Empire was the powerhouse. The Mongols never even had a crack. Then again maybe the defeat in Vietnam was a planned stepping stone.
|
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 18:44 |
I don't think the halt of Mongol expansion had definite "geographic reasons." Of course, geography is an important factor, but we also know that Mongols were succesful in conquering such places ad Afghanistan, Armenia and Korea despite extremely hard geographical terrain and conditions. The fighting in Russia was not a paradise as well.
In fact, I think the empire was already overstretched. For sure the land they had already conquered far exceeded their most fantastic expectations. They barely have enough forces to consolidate their power in the conquered lands, not to speak about the continuing the expansion. Besides, the quarels already started within the empire between the heirs of Genghiskhan. There was simply not enough resources for going on with the expansion.
However, it's more than likely that the determined Mongol attack on India, Europe, SE asia, Egypt etc, would overrun those regions. The reason that that didn't happen is simply because the snake had already swallowed more than she could digest.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 19:18 |
The part of S Asia the Mongols did take they did a pretty professional job with. the Potohar was ravaged by them so well, that modern day Islamabad still has a water shortage.
Also temujin, the success in stopping in Genghis and his generals expeditions had little to do with the generals and a lot to do with a combo of a very hot summer and a very large monsoon which flooded the Jehlum and made it impassable.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 22:39 |
i'm not talking about Genghis Khan, Genghis did not invade India anyways, he only pursuded Jalal-ad-Dina dn after he defeated him withrew. there were numerous small and large ivnasions after that from teh Chaghatay Kahnate, even up to the gates of Delhi, don't you know this?
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 23:29 |
Originally posted by Paul
The Mongols halted at the German forests reluctant to enter. The would only go into Northern India, they wouldn't venture into SE Asia at all. |
I can't agree. Mongol invasion has a very significant impact on SE Asia. The decline and fall of Pagan kingdom is directly attributed to Mongol invasion. Besides, the Mongol conquests opened the door from Tai-Shan migrations to Indochina from Yunnan.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 23:38 |
Temujin, opposite to other regions Syria is good for cavalry movements and is not separated from the mongols centres by natural barriers althought, i agree that the indian resistance should be put highest than usual said.
Ok guys, i have made a map about what we are talking about, sure you will laugh about me the following two centuries
Based on this map
We have
1. Steppe Axis (green): in green across all Eurasia i have painted the axis line of the mongol empire. The steppes, are highways of comunication, trade and military routes and the region from where the mongols got their best military components. Along this line the mongol power lasted more time, far from here and less time of dominance.
2. Rain: the ideal map is a well detailed map of rainfall in Asia and the mongol empire drawed, but i have the mongol map plus dates in an all rainfall map poorly detailed. Well, two dates:
1.1 Rain less than 500mm anually: is the esmerald green line wich include most of Asia. The limit as you see is between Crimean and Finland with a exception into the Urals. In the Near East we have the Caucasus region included, plus coastal Anatolia and coastal Syria, Zagros mountains and north Iran too; in South Asia the line is more or less along the Indus frontier, but Punjab is over 500 and Rajasthan under. Following the himalayan frontier most of historical China is over 500 and equally Manchuria and Amur Region.
1.2 Rain most than 1000mm anually, Important NOTE: don't confuse with the blue line wich show the limits at the death of Genghis. Is the dark blue, these regions are in Europe the adriatic coast and the escandinavian mountains, to the east is less than 1000; in Near East we have Caucasus, iranian caspian sea, certain regions of Zagros and Lebanon over 1000, in North India the eastern portion of the country is equally over this date and again following the Himalayas we have South China and Southeast Asia (and many more of course, i don't show it), plus Korea and Japan.
Conclusions: most of the mongol empire, the conquest and campaigns of the mongol soldiers and their bows, is under 500 mm of rainfall with the exceptions of mountain regions of Southwest Asia, and north China; the only region over 1000 is South China. Eastern Europe, most of european Russia and North China, regions were mongols were sucessful are over 500mm and similars in this concept. South China and southeast Asia have heavy rains and their success was variable.
3. Natural Barriers (white):We have Carpathos, Caucasus, Tigris-ufrates, Zagros, Indus and neighbour mountains, Himalaya, Tian Shan and Altai, southeast asian mountains, Yangzi river, korean mountains and the Tsushima Strait. I have put very important lines in Himalaya and Caucasus, as we can see, some of this borders are frontiers of the mongol empire as Carpathos, Indus, Himalaya and in certain times Yanzgi, but others like Zagros, Tian Shan and Caucasus are inside the empire.
4. Good regions for Cavalry out of the empire (dark green): Hungarian plane, Syria and North Iraq, Northwestern India (i couldn't put it but include Rajasthan). These regions are good for cavalry because are flat, with good pastures or agricultural plains, in fact border regions of the mongol empire and where they could launch several campaigns in good conditions. In this regions, the terrain factor is favourable for the mongol military and certainly they couldn't overpass it.
5. Bad regions for Cavalry (black): Because irrigated fields, swamps, mountains or forest, or both, bad for this type of warfare mongols proved capables of good performance in most of the regions showed here: northern european Russia was subjugated, Tibet and specially South China too, but Southeast Asia no, and syberian forest neither (what could be subjugated there). India out from Northwest was a hell for cavalry.
6. Countries wich provided Infantry, Navy and Artillery: Crucial for the difference with previous steppe empires is the aid of specialists in these fields, they were mostly from North China and Persia and help to explain the success in South China, Near East and Russia, and too the unsucessful adventures in Japan or Southeast Asia.
7. Types of enemies: Europeans, southeastern asians and japanese conform states with limited resources or not well developed statal structures. Dheli Sultanate and Mamluk Egypt are two of the most advanced countries of the world in terms of organization and economy.
Seen all the factors, what can be the conclusion? What have in common the differents borders of the Mongol Empire?... I don't know well, seen like a natural border plus a heavy rain is important in India and China, but not in Europe and Middle East; looks too that the distance from the steppe is very important, but Eastern Europe is again an exception mostly because politic factors. So sure, we are in front of a very complex problem wich can't be explained following only one or few factors.
Edited by Ikki - 23-Mar-2008 at 12:15
|
|
Adalwolf
Chieftain
Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 04:45 |
[/QUOTE]
i would rather think forrested/jungle regions are more a limitation to their horse armies than anything, they didn't expanded into Siberia afterall, in fact they were afraid of doing so. [/QUOTE]
Actually, a Siberian Khanate did exist. It was called the Khanate of Sibir. It was founded in the 1400s, and lasted until the Russians defeated it in 1598.
I have a thread on it asking for more info, but no one seems to know anything about it!
|
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
Edward Abbey
|
|
kafkas
Samurai
Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 07:49 |
The Mongols also burned Izmir on the Aegean Sea to the ground.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 09:14 |
Originally posted by Temujin
i'm not talking about Genghis Khan, Genghis did not invade India anyways, he only pursuded Jalal-ad-Dina dn after he defeated him withrew. there were numerous small and large ivnasions after that from teh Chaghatay Kahnate, even up to the gates of Delhi, don't you know this?
|
Yes I did, (and Genghis Khan came all the way to the Jehlum as I pointed out), but in S Asian parlance, "Mongol" usually means Genghis and his direct successors.
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 12:18 |
Originally posted by Adalwolf
Actually, a Siberian Khanate did exist. It was called the Khanate of Sibir. It was founded in the 1400s, and lasted until the Russians defeated it in 1598.
I have a thread on it asking for more info, but no one seems to know anything about it!
|
What the hell first time i hear about this , before i knew about russians and the problems with tatars in the syberian expansion but don't knew the Siberia Khanate, very interesting how could they sustain the territory, how organize it?
Edited by Ikki - 23-Mar-2008 at 12:19
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 16:21 |
Originally posted by Ikki
Originally posted by Adalwolf
Actually, a Siberian Khanate did exist. It was called the Khanate of Sibir. It was founded in the 1400s, and lasted until the Russians defeated it in 1598.
I have a thread on it asking for more info, but no one seems to know anything about it!
|
What the hell first time i hear about this , before i knew about russians and the problems with tatars in the syberian expansion but don't knew the Siberia Khanate, very interesting how could they sustain the territory, how organize it? |
What's susprising in that . Nomadic peope has been living in Siberia for milleniums. There was a strong state of Enisei Kyrgyzs in the 9th century that destoroyed the Nomadic Uighur Kaganate (the heart of Enisei Kyrgyz state was Siberian Taiga). Northern Mongols are essentially Siberian people. Altai which is actually the craddle of all Turkic nomadic people is partly in Siberia as well.
Mongols also were familiar with the fighting in the forests and the empire of Chinghizkhan included "wild forest tribes" Uriankhai (in Mongolian) which were effectively subdued by Chinghizkhan. Subudai and Jelme according to some sources (greatest Mongolian generals) are believed to be Uriankhais. There is even a theory that modern Khalkha Mongols are just Siberian forest people which switched to the nomadic life style just only relatively recently (though this one is not very credible).
There are a lot of sources on Siberian Khanate in Russian I just doubt if there will any use of them if I post them here.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|