What if Mongolians horde landed in Japan?

1.  Amphibious invasions are extremely difficult:  The most difficult type of invasion, period.  This means the Japanese had an enormous, enormous advantage when it came to terrain.  This is on top of the usual rule in land invasions:  Defenders always have a terrain advantage over attackers.

2.  Wikipedia's versions:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan
---Of course, anyone can post anything there...  The author(s) of this page/entry seem a bit bias in their reporting of "mimimal" Japanese deaths.  A bit suspect if you ask me.

3.  I have seen (History Channel documentaries, etc.) and read seemingly contradictory writings, by high brow Ivy League profs and whatnot, on the two Mongol invasions of Japan.
(a.)  In one account of the first invasion in 1274, the Mongols actually won, which consisted of 50/50 Mongol and Korean troops totalling no more than 25,000 men.  The Japanese defenders put up a fierce resistance by were handily beaten and retreated.  Because of said fierce resistance, the Mongols thought the Japanese were merely regrouping and they themselves retreated to their ships only to be devastated by the "Kamikaze" winds.
(b.)  Virtually all accounts of the second invasion of 1281, says the Japanese were well prepared for round two.  Defenders outnumbered invaders.  The Japanese again put up a fierce resistance.  But here is where the contradictions begin...   (It should be said that these accounts were written/filmed back in the 1960's, 1970's, 1990's as wells as the early 2000's.  Japanese marine archeologists are actively working on many relevant sites where sunken ships lie.)  One account says the Mongols had difficulty establishing a beach head, whereas another says they made it very, very deep into Japanese soil.  

The debate here, of couse, is whether the weather played a key role or not.  Many western scholars contend the typhoon was irrelevant to the Japanese victory, whereas the older view says that the Japanese twice were saved by two timely typhoons.  Ancient Japanese historical records say they were winning against the Mongols.  Rather ironic, since for centuries, Japanese legends (nationalistic mythology) claim the Japanese were divinely protected, i.e. Japanese nationalists forsake their own ancient records which suggests they fought their way to victory, rather than having been divinely protected by the Heavens.

For me, whether the weather save the Japanese from the Mongols is debatable.  (After all, a lot of Western scholars claim that the Mongols could not have conquered Europe even though they so easily defeated Europes best and most fanatical knights:  The Hospitalers, the Tuetonic Knights, and whatnot.) 

But  what is NOT debatable is that Japan was saved because it was an island.  Amphibious invasions are extremely difficult.

4.  After the Japanese surrendered to the Americans in 1945, a cruelly belated "Kamikaze" wind hit Japan.  It was one of those "storms of the century", probably on par with the ones that hit during the two Mongol invasions, if not stronger.  This storm sank several large US Navy vessels that were docked or sailing just offshore.  Truly ironic since the Japanese were desperately praying for this storm for months prior to their surrender.  The point here is that marine invasions are extremely difficult even under ideal conditions, i.e. calm waters, to even talk about one that was undertaken during of a "perfect storm".  Think of the Discovery Channel's "Deadliest Catch" series.  Ha ha.

5.  Chinese ships & the second invasion:  A recent documentary says Kublai was so impatient in the second invasion he confiscated shallow hulled river boats to serve as troop transports.  In light of the typhoon, this was a catistrophic mistake, for such top-heavy/high center-of-gravity ships could not possibly withstand rough seas.

6.  The Mongol Invasions of Vietnam:  
(a)  Don't confuse northern Vietnam with southern Vietnam, which is how most people "understand" Vietnam as depicted in Hollywood's Vietnam War movies.  Vietnam is a long country, slightly larger than the Korean panisula (N. and S. Korea combined), and slightly smaller than Japan.

Vietnam:  127800 square miles (331000 square kilometers).
Japan:  145840 square miles.
N. Korea:   46540 square miles (120538 square kilometers)
S.  Korea:   38321 square miles (99250 square kilometers)
California:  163,707 square miles

Vietnam is about 1000 miles from top to bottom.  But all this is irrelevant because Vietnam, or rather Dai Viet as it was called then, during the time of the Mongol invasions was a tiny frantion of the size that it is now.   See this map:  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Vietnam_Expand1.gif

Northern Vietnam has two seasons, whereas southern Vietnam has only one season.  Think of Los Angeles and Mexico City, latitudewise.

(b)  There were three invasion into Vietnam.  (Four, if you include the one against Champa, which the Mongols also lost.)  The first invasion in 1283 consisted of only 25,000 troops; the second in 1285 consisted of 500,000; the third in 1287 consisted of 300,000.  All three were nearly wiped out with very few returning.  The Vietnamese army numbered only 200,000 in the 2nd and 3rd invasions.  They consisted even of women and children--though to what degree, I can't say.

(c) 13th century Vietnamese used all kinds of tactics:  guerilla, scorch earth, as well as conventional battles.  From what I understand of the Mongols, they were masters of setting traps:   A small number of mounted archers would ride up to a force, fire a few volleys, then run as if they were running for their lives, which would trigger a "predator response", if you will, out of their opponents heavy calvary sending them on hot pursuit of the fleeing Mongol horsemen.   Of couse, we all know that this was a ruse to separate their enemies calvalry from their infantry, i.e. divide & conquer.  They would lead their enemy's calvary into a well prepared ambush point where many more mounted Mongol archers were waiting for them.  The mounted Mongol archers, or light calvalry, would decimate their enemy's heavy calvary from a relatively safe distance.  After which, the Mongol heavy calvary would come in and mop up what was still alive, but essentially ineffective fighting force.  

This is quite reminiscent of what the US was doing in Iraq in 1991 and 2003:  American air power easily and at a safe distance demolished 1/2 of the Iraqi armored divisions, then the American ground forces would come in finishing off what was essentially a severely mauled & thoroughly ineffective fighting force.  Understand that military experts say once a unit loses 30% of its men, it is no longer an effective fighting force.

At any rate, Vietnamese don't fall for traps, Mongol or otherwise, they set them. 

 In the 3rd invasion, which was one where the Mongols used a huge fleet of boats for transport down the Red River delta in northern Vietnam, the Vietnamese sent out a small flotilla of bait ships to feign an attack and quick retreat.  The Mongol ships then quickly fell into a "predatory response" giving chase righting into a Vietnamese trap:  An area of the Bach Dang river where they laid down thousands of metal tipped stakes during low tide...   The Mongol ships where impaled and stuck.  Then Vietnamese archers shoot fired laden arrows which naturally burned the ships.

Hmm, sounds like a Mongol tactic, no?  However, Vietnamese were using it since the 930's CE when they defeated the Chinese and achieved independence.  

Also, guerilla warfare was common amongst the Yueh tribes throuhgout southern China who were constantly rebelling against their Chinese conquerors throught the first millenium CE, and even prior.

(d)  In later Chinese invasions by the Ming, Q'ing and even the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, the Vietnamese were outnumbered two to one, about 200,000 Chinese vs 100,000 and the Vietnamese still came out on top.  These were NOT guerilla wars.

7.  Not sure at all, but I always thought "scorch earth" tactics were not conventional, hence they are "guerrilla".

Mongols would surely prevail. They were very succesful in the skirmishes before the destruction by Kamikaze storm. They cut down Japanese forces on the islands in the Japanese Strait very fast. Their military advantage was overwhelming.

Yes, Japan is mountainous but so is Korea and Monglos conquered Korea.  They also conquered Afganistan, which is mountainous and countries in Caucas Mountains Region. Despite the terrain most of the battles in the history of Japan were fought in the valleys, thus there were no obstacles for the Mongolian cavalry.

Besides, Mongols have enouhg auxillary Chinese and Korean infantry with advanced military machines.

Japan definetely was doomed !

 

Nice posts TranHungDao

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Vietnam doesn't have much grazing land anyway. I don't know anything about the Mongols in vietnam, however attempted "guerilla" warfare (or the 13 century equivalent) by the Khwarzim Shah was met by the Mongols simply destroying whole regions of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Well there are many different forms, strategies and tactics in Guerilla warefare......The Shah chose the wrong one/s dividing your forces into static garrisons isn't smart nor is it a good example of Guerrila warefare. Furtheremore The area controlled by the Khwarzim Shah was far more suited to the mongols favoured style of warefare then Vietnam or even Japan. On a Final note the poor shah went up against the likes of Subedei Bahadur, Jebe Noyan and Genghis Khan himself, it is doubtful that the Vietnamese did or the Japanese would have come across this quality of leadership.

Originally posted by Siege Tower i just dont think guerrilla warfare can work under the conditions of the time, i mean Japan was not exactly famous for its fire arms, what's the point of guerrilla warfare if a)you cant do much damage, you have to admit the mongols have better equipments and definitely greater in numbers. b)you can't run, where can you run?

Typically you use Guerrila warefare when your opponent has conventional superiority so these may be reasons to use guerrila warefare. Furtheremore I'm sure if peasents were mobilised AND the Daimyo were united the Japanese would easily have numbers on thier side (not quality though).

PS: Fire arms aren't that big an advantage at this time.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Mongols would surely prevail. They were very succesful in the skirmishes before the destruction by Kamikaze storm. They cut down Japanese forces on the islands in the Japanese Strait very fast. Their military advantage was overwhelming.

They also suffered thier fair share of casualties trying to land and from Japanese raids on thier ships.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Yes, Japan is mountainous but so is Korea and Monglos conquered Korea.  They also conquered Afganistan, which is mountainous and countries in Caucas Mountains Region. Despite the terrain most of the battles in the history of Japan were fought in the valleys, thus there were no obstacles for the Mongolian cavalry.

They had a lot of trouble in Korea, despite it bieng relatively close to thier center of power......now make Korea an island. Besides bieng in a valley does impede the maneoverability of the Mongols as there is now firm barriers to how far they can retreat or maneover before bieng impeded by the environment. None of those effortless fiegned retreats over miles. Then theres all the fortifications you could build on top of those mountains and hills.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Besides, Mongols have enouhg auxillary Chinese and Korean infantry with advanced military machines.

I agree that the Auxillary's are key in deciding whether the mongols win or lose, in this environment you need a disciplined infantry force. Furtheremore if you intend to rule you will need garrisons. Not to mention for sieges. The question is how loyal or reliable are these Auxillary's.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Japan definetely was doomed !

I don't think the result of the invasion upon a succesful landing is inevitably going to be defeat for the Mongols or Victory.

Regards, Praetor.


Edited by Praetor - 01-Jun-2007 at 11:16

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Yes, Japan is mountainous but so is Korea and Monglos conquered Korea.  They also conquered Afganistan, which is mountainous and countries in Caucas Mountains Region. Despite the terrain most of the battles in the history of Japan were fought in the valleys, thus there were no obstacles for the Mongolian cavalry.

They had a lot of trouble in Korea, despite it bieng relatively close to thier center of power......now make Korea an island. Besides bieng in a valley does impede the maneoverability of the Mongols as there is now firm barriers to how far they can retreat or maneover before bieng impeded by the environment. None of those effortless fiegned retreats over miles. Then theres all the fortifications you could build on top of those mountains and hills.

Well, they had troubles in Korea, but they won. They actually had a large number of casualties in many places, but most of the times they were victorious. And again the landscape of countries like Georgia or Azerbaijan is sometimes much more difficult than the Japanese landscape. Mongols were victorious there. They had gone through the mountain passes and than they defeated the local armies, despite the fact that they were hiding in the mountain casttles. 13 th century wasn't the best time of Japanese military art. Their weapons and military tactics were inferior and Mongols had much more experience.

I don't think the result of the invasion upon a succesful landing is inevitably going to be defeat for the Mongols or Victory.

Regards, Praetor.
[/QUOTE]

Korea was mountainous, yes. But Mongolians were free to invade Korea easily because Korea was not an island. Furthermore, Korean government were fighting whether they should join the Mongolians or defy them. While there were number of successful Korean resistance against Mongolian calvary, especially when Koreans were well trained for massive calvary charge by the Chinese... Mongolian armies simply outmanevuered and outnumbered the Korean armies. Even when Seoul was taken by Mongolians, the  Korean resistance simply moved the capital to island near Inchon, where the Mongolians failed to land due to Korea' naval superiority. Plus, the Southern Korea continued to show effective resistance, where Mongolian calvary were disadvantageous due to the environment and the incapability for Mongolians to fight in one effective and organized army. But convinced that Korea has fallen, the Korean king agreed to bow down to Mongolian will. And hence the  great tragedy began, when the Korean armies split; one still loyal to Korean resistance, and another joined the Mongolian armies under the will of Korean king. Fight lasted longer, but the Korean resistance, cut off from King's support and divided, were doomed to die.

////

Edited by Sarmat12 - 02-Jun-2007 at 00:20

Originally posted by Kamikaze 738 No offense, but are you kidding me?! Easily conquered?? It took nearly 25 years for the Mongols to conquer the Southern Song! From looking at this and comparing to the other states the Mongols conquer, 25 years was pretty long in which the Mongol conquest of Russia and the Islamic states of the Khwarezmian Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate was roughy 5 years each. That was nothing compare to how long the Song lived before falling to the Mongols. Its also extraordinary to note that when the Mongols invaded the Song, they were already in a weaken state of constant invasion from the Jins and yet they still held on for about 25 years before finally fell to the Mongols. Easily conquered... yea

Just to let you know, I think it was the first Mongol invasion of Vietnam in 1257 was really intended for Southern Song.  Because the Vietnamese refused them passage, they decided (foolishly) to go after Vietnam/Dai Viet instead.  So Dai Viet saved Southern Song for another few decades.  Otherwise Southern Song would have had to fight the Mongols on two fronts including their soft underbelly.

Also, you should as those "what if" questions such as:  What if the Mongols only concentrated on Southern Song instead of rampaging throughout the rest of the known world, all the way out to Europe and North Africa?

Originally posted by Sarmat12  Yes, they were not sea warriors, but in the war with Japan Korean navy was on Mongolian side. And I believe united Korean and Chinese fleet was stronger than the Japanese fleet.

Even so, this would not allow them to conquer Japan.  They'd still need an actual land invasion.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 So the question was basically technical which is whether Mongols would be able to land their army in Japan and fortunately for Japanese they were not able to do so due to the typhoon.

I distinctly remember seeing a documentary where they showed the Mongols had landed and went right into the central regions of Japanese soil, longitudewise.  I think this was the second invasion (1281) of 140,000 men; much of these men would actually have been there for logistical support.

In the first invasion, they had tactical suprise and did not have problems landing.  But in the second invasion, the Japanese were well prepared and they did have problems landing.

And in the first invasion (1274; 25,000 men), the Mongols actually won, but did not know it, and retreated to their ships only to be wiped out by the typhoon.

Originally posted by Sarmat12  Well, the second time they were also wiped out by the typhoon but not by the Japanese defences.

True, but it is debatable if the Japananese could have done it, typhoon or not.  Ancient Japanese records suggest the Japanese were winning, especially since they were prepared as well as the fact that the defenders outnumbered the invaders.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 The fact is that the Mongol expedition was destroyed by typhoon.  We are can not be absolutely sure about other details (different sources give different data). However, having all the information about the military achievements of the Mongols, one can naturally assume that they had better chances for victory.

Look, it was written in both ancient Japanese as well as Chinese records that the Japanese were winning in the second invasion. 

Having said that, I find it debatable if he Japanese could have really won in the end.  For me, what really protected Japan is the mere fact that it is an island.  By way of example, England would have both to Napoleon and Hitler had it no been an island nation.