Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Places spared by the Mongols Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 16:36 |
Why were the rich regions of India and Southeast Asia spared from
Mongol conquest? Did they actually invade and were repulsed? If not,
why then did they instead conquer the relatively less wealthy regions
of Russia and Eastern Europe?
|
|
Janissary
Joined: 06-Feb-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 16:44 |
The climate was not atapt for the mongol way of fighitng and they did invade south east asia they went in to Burma but had much trouble conquering it.
|
|
Feramez
Colonel
Joined: 16-Jan-2005
Location: Uzbekistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 521
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 19:42 |
Weren't the Mughals Mongols or were they Turks? I forgot how to spell it, Mughals or Moghals. Well anyway, they conquered India.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 23:29 |
The Mughals were not Mongols per se. They were a mixed race of Mongols,
Turkomens, Persians and Afghans. They were not part of the Mongol
Empire as Timur Lenk's empire was not part of the Mongol Empire.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2005 at 01:45 |
They actually did try and conquer South East Asia. Vietnam, as always, was a particularly hard nut. The Vietnamese repulsed the Mongols three times and maintained effective independence.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2005 at 15:53 |
no they did not, all three invasions were sucessfull in battle, but Mongols were unable to hold position, they suffered from the hard conditions and guerillia warfare, therefore they withdrew, however Dai-Viet payed tribute and became vassals.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2005 at 16:28 |
Why not India then? If I am not mistaken, India was extremely wealthy,
though perhaps not in the same league as China. Why invade the poor,
backwards Europeans when you could take the wealth of a region like
India?
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2005 at 16:37 |
because the Il-Khanate was the first to crumble and Timur did indeed raid (but not conquer) the Sultanate Delhi.
|
|
poirot
Arch Duke
Editorial Staff
Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2005 at 19:35 |
If Alexander the Great had a hard time conquering India, so would the Mongols. In terms of terrain and climate, India was much harder to conquer than China or Persia. Russia, however, was better suited for Mongol conquest because of its vast steppes. Mongol warfare, at least in the beginning, relied heavily on cavalry. Most of India was unsuited for massive cavalry expeditions. It was a wise decision not to take over India, for even if the Mongols did succeed in battle, they would have a difficult time maintaing their hold in India. As to Southeast Asia, the Yuan Dynasty did initiate campaigns in Burma and Vietnam, but to little success (and the Mongls relied mostly on non-Mongol infantry during the incursions.)
|
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2005 at 00:58 |
Hmm... I guess that is a plausible answer. Thanks. The same would go for Southeast Asia because of the deep jungles.
|
|
Cengiz Kagan
Janissary
Joined: 06-Jul-2005
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 17:23 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
The Mughals were not Mongols per se. They were a mixed race of Mongols,
Turkomens, Persians and Afghans. They were not part of the Mongol
Empire as Timur Lenk's empire was not part of the Mongol Empire.
|
This is incorrect. The Moguls who concurred India had nothing to do
with Persians and Afgans. They were Turkish and Mongol tribes, brought
together by Cengiz Khan.
|
TANRI TURKU KORUSUN
|
|
Aygucu Tonyukuk
Janissary
Joined: 06-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 19:16 |
Mughallar Babr ah'n kurduu devletin addr. Babr ah da Timur'un 5. gbek torunudur, yani TRKTR.
Mughals were founded by Babur Shah and babur Shah was grand grand grand grand grand son of Tamerlane, so he was TURK.
|
Turkish History Forum
www.turktarihi.net
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 15:58 |
Timr was from a Mongol clan, the Barulas clan. he was ethnically a Mongol but his clan was of course Turkified. he was a Transoxanian if anything.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 14:44 |
Originally posted by Cengiz Kagan
This is incorrect. The Moguls who concurred India had nothing to do
with Persians and Afgans. They were Turkish and Mongol tribes, brought
together by Cengiz Khan.
|
Yes, and I do not disagree with you. The Mughals were an outwardly
steppe people. However to say that these people had nothing to do with
Persians and Afghans after living in an area that was ethnically
dominated by them for quite a long time is severely illogical. Are you
telling me that never, in their long history of living in that area,
did one "Mughal" ever marry a Persian or Afghan? Remember, Timur
conquered all of present-day Iran, and most of present-day Afganistan.
The name Babur is an
Indo-European word for "beaver".
|
|