• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Finished reading the book, and here is some useful info (not direct quotes):

Mongol Military Structure and Size

The two sources historians have of the period, the Secret History (official history produced by a Mongol servant)and the Altan Debter (another book) are generally pretty accurate. They both say that at he time of the quriltai (council) of 1206, when Genghis was made Great Khan, Mongol armies stood at about 105,000. Though this may be slightly exaggerated, many historians think it is partially truthful. Mongol armies consisted of nearly the whole able male population, and local reinforcements who would rather be on the winning team.
At the time of Ogadai's ascension, they both believe that standing Mongol armies stood about 120,000 (those who had died were replaced by Chinese, Khitan, Qara-Khitai and Uighur troops). So Mongol armies were rather large. Hulagu's "expedition" to the Middle East is widely regarded to be rather large as well; Mongke Khan asked for something like every 2 in 10 Mongol soldier to be available for this expedition, with of course local recruitments picked up along the way from Qarakorum to Persia.
Though smaller than what the Khwarazm and Chinese could throw at them, Mongol armies are held to be considerably larger than conventional European armies at the time. No one has exact figures of the expedition to Europe, but it was rather larger than what Europeans were used to at the time.
According to The Secret History, and what William of Rubruck reports he heard, by the quriltai of 1206, Genghis Khan had his own personal guard (keshig) of 10,000 men. For many European countries at the time, this may have been their entire national army. This alone was the elite core of the inner core of the Mongol army. So any expedition that arrived in Europe as Batu Khan's did would have been immensely large, with local reinforcements picked up along the way. Such expeditions as these would require years of planning, and all subjugated peoples would have to provide tumens or face the consequences.

Mongol armies were theoretically organised along decimal lines i.e. 10, 100, 1000, 10000. Each tumen (10,000 men) was the primary tool for fighting, though 1000 men would be a more personal thing for each troop. Troops from any country being conquered were gladly welcomed into the ordo (Mongol for army, gave rise to "horde"). Such welcome additions were Chinese and Muslim siege engineers.
Other less conventional additions were war slaves. When captured from a sacked city, they would either undertake dangerous siege work at the next city, or would be driven in front of the Mongol assault lines. The idea behind this was to reduce Mongol casualties, or to stop the defenders from fighting (they don't want to kill their countrymen).
There was also the tamma system. A sizeable amount of troops in a province (maybe about 5000) would be posted in a regiment on the border, assigned to secure, and even expand the conquered territory.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Hey guys,

Been doing some work on this recently, and if any of you have been feeling as though some of your questions or thoughts have been unanswered, I've come up with some stuff from "The Mongols" that can back up some of my theories and events:

Reasons for the Large Extent of the Hungarian Massacres
Ogadai Khan in real life favoured his grandson Shiremun to succeed him. In this alternate history, whilst on his way to congratulate Batu Khan in Vienna for his successes (on behalf of his grandfather), Shiremun and his train are ambushed by Hungarian nobles near Buda, and is killed. Ogadai is greatly grieved, and orders Batu Khan's general Jaygeir Shakhan to carry out mass reprisals to show his grief. So the Hungarian Massacres were very extensive.

Reasons for the Tight Control of Europe Imposed by Ogadai (unlike real life)
After Shiremun's death and the subsequent Massacre, Ogadai felt he could not trust the Europeans. And he considered them substandard in the grand scheme of things anyway. So loyal servants like Jaygeir Shakhan were entrusted with the tight control of such evil and substandard peoples.

Reasons for Warszawa Being the Seat of Ogadaid Power
Some of you may wonder why the Warszawa Khanate is the seat of Ogadaid power. Well, in real life, when Guyuk Khan (son of Ogadai) died, Mongke Khan (son of Tolui, younger brother of Ogadai) seized the throne, and subsequently purged the Chagataids and Ogadaids who had opposed him from Mongolia. In this alternate history, he did this anyway and also to the Jochids (thus not endearing himself to either faction in the War of the Grandsons), and the surviving Ogadaids established themselves in the family home Ogadai Khan had established in Warszawa, far, far away from Mongke.
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Some more detailed explanations:

Reasons for the Great Strength of the Golden Horde
As a result of the War of the Grandsons, both Garetai and Hulagu are dead, leading to the collapse of the Chagatai khanate. A huge exodus of people fleeing the fighting in Turkestan fled for Mongol Russia, giving the Golden Horde great manpower and wealth. INstead of the cities of TUrkestan becoming wealthy from trade, it was cities like Sarai Batu that prospered and grew rich, as all trade passed through this region.
And because of Hulagu's death in a rockslide, the Ilkhanate was never formed. Therefore, there were no destructive wars between Berke's Golden Horde and Hulagu's Ilkhanate, thus not weakening the GOlden Horde any further.

Reasons for Great Mongol Unity in Europe
After seeing the collapse of the CHagatai khanate through infighting (resulting in the loss of control and potential tax revenues - an important thing to Mongols), the khans of EUrope, under the leadership of the Ogadaid European Khan swore an oath to do as much as possible to preserve Mongol overlordship in Europe. Also, all the khans were loyal supporters of Ogadai, and weren't too happy when Mongke purged the Ogadaid and the CHagataids oor the Jochids (Batu Khan's family - that's why he joined Fareidai in the War of the Grandsons). As a result, they stuck together.

Reasons for so Many Khanates in Europe
As in China, the practice of dividing conquered territories into autonomous apanages was done. It was also practice to reward loyal followers for their services to the Great Khan. Such apanages were internally centralised, and loosely attached to the European Khan in Warszawa. As time went by, and control loosened, these ulus (patrimonies) slowly became more independent-minded, so much so as to be mostly free of direct Warszawa control, and considered independent, though still pledging loyalty to the European Khan.

Reasons for the Strong Loyalties to the European Khanates
At first, after Shiremun's death, tight control and reprisals were shown as a sign of Ogadai's grief. Short-sighted policies of harsh and erratic taxation also ruled the day.
After Ogadai's death, control was relaxed, and taxation was toned down to an easily sustainable rate and made regular and less erratic. The khans saw that this would strengthen their position and ensure their longevity.
Living standards also increased, for the prosperity brought by trade and good policies made people rich. Local officials were gradually reintroduced into the system, ensuring the loyalty of the "intelligentsia". Banditry was eradicated, and freedom of passage between the khanates made life easier for travellers. The lack of petty states constantly fighting ensured a safe and peaceful environment from which the locals grew and prospered under the internally-peaceful reigns of the khans.
Also, people had forgotten about the days before the Mongols (as those who had survived the invasion had died of old age etc.), and therefore only remembered the harshness of the immediate post-invasion days. Therefore they loved their khans for being benevolent and bringing them out of the harsh rule of post-invasion Mongol policies.
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
If any of you guys want to ask questions, feel free to do so. I'll be getting EU2 soon (hopefully!), and then I'll develop this into a scenario for you guys.
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
I've just stumbled across this thread again - glad you're still working on it ...

I have recently read an English translation of the "Secret History" - a kind of Mongolian horse-opera - very interesting read. Did you know that Temujin once killed one of his brothers - in a dispute over a fish? (his mother was royally pissed).
 

unmerged(5394)

Isten Ostora
Aug 17, 2001
858
0
Originally posted by Dimwit
If any of you guys want to ask questions, feel free to do so. I'll be getting EU2 soon (hopefully!), and then I'll develop this into a scenario for you guys.

Hey, You have not been around here for quiet a while.:)
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Yeah, there's an annoying thing called boarding school and a loss of interest. But I'm rereading my "The Mongols" book, and gaining some more info. There's still more to come.
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Ok, two question (a sort of poll) for anyone here...

Azerbaijan: Monarchs descended from Khwarazm-shah, or the Grand Masters of the Ismailis?

The Ottomans: SHould they exist, or be replaced by the Saljuq Khanate of Baiju, a Mongol general who campaigned in Anatolia?
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
The Abbasid Caliphate
The collapse of the Khwarazm-shah had allowed the Caliph to extend his power in Iraq and the surrounding area. But the rich lands of the Euphrates and Tigris were always a target of Persian lords in the east, the Azerbaijanis in the north and the Ayyubid sultanates to the west. They were all eager to gain control of the rich fertile lands and the lucrative trade routes passing through the area.
The Caliphate was finally broken when a combined Shia force of Azerbaijanis and Persians sacked Baghdad and killed the Caliph in the 13th century. Of course, this did not endear them to the Sunni world, and there was constant conflict in the area as the Mamluks and Ayyubids of Syria campaigned to reclaim SUnni land.
The destruction of the Ayyubid sultanate by Azerbaijan led to the Mamluks claiming that area, and also parts of Iraq.
At its greatest extent, Azerbaijan even controlled the province of Kirkuk, and the Mamluks claimed Iraq.
When Timur invaded the area, he captured all of Iraq, forcing the Mamluks and Azerbaijanis to the borders they have in 1419.
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Dimwit
Ok, two question (a sort of poll) for anyone here...

Azerbaijan: Monarchs descended from Khwarazm-shah, or the Grand Masters of the Ismailis?

The Ottomans: SHould they exist, or be replaced by the Saljuq Khanate of Baiju, a Mongol general who campaigned in Anatolia?

I would prefer the Azerbaijani monrachs to be descended from Jalal al-din, the son of the last Khwarazm-shah - with the Ismailis surviving as an armed radical minority in their hilltop forts. I assume that the curtailment of Hugalu prevents his historical crushing of that sect ...

I think the Ottomans would be absorbed into the mongol Khanate, if it survived in that area - this seems to be the usual fate of a defeated tribal confederation that has not had time to consolidate its power on a traditional basis -- to be swept up by the next confederation.
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Originally posted by Malthus


I would prefer the Azerbaijani monrachs to be descended from Jalal al-din, the son of the last Khwarazm-shah - with the Ismailis surviving as an armed radical minority in their hilltop forts. I assume that the curtailment of Hugalu prevents his historical crushing of that sect ...

I think the Ottomans would be absorbed into the mongol Khanate, if it survived in that area - this seems to be the usual fate of a defeated tribal confederation that has not had time to consolidate its power on a traditional basis -- to be swept up by the next confederation.

I was just thinking that since the Ismailis were already established in the area (and having quite substantial power), they could do just as well as the descendants of Jalal al-din. And you're right, the death of Hulagu meant no eradication of the Ismailis (which would eventually be done if the Azerbaijanis were Khwarazm descendants - they're too much of an extremist threat to be left to survive)

And I got the idea for no Ottomans, because from 1229, the generals Baiju and Chormaghun campaigned in the Middle East. The defeat of the Rum sultanate in Anatolia at Kose Dagh in 1243 had secured that area as submissive to the Mongols. Now Persia at the time had some Mongol autonomous rule, and basicallu Baiju and Chormaghun were sent westwards to do a lot of killing.
In the alternate history, I could have it that the consolidation of Azerbaijani and Ayyubid power in the area, and the overthrow of the Mongol officials in Persia soon after Hulagu's death would have cut off the armies of Baiju (Chormaghun being dead by then) from other Mongol territory. So, noting the weariness of his armies' endless years of campaigning, he camped in Eastern Anatolia, creating what was to be known as the Saljuq Khanate. It would then suppress the rising Ottoman threat in the 14th century, meaning no more Ottomans.

What do you guys think? Ottomans or Saljuq Khanate?
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Dimwit
Yeah, there's an annoying thing called boarding school and a loss of interest. But I'm rereading my "The Mongols" book, and gaining some more info. There's still more to come.

Boarding school?!? How old are you Dimwit? No offence, but I kinda assumed that you were at least in your 20s or 30s, from your writing abilities ... if not, you write very maturely for your age, and with a quite astounding grasp of the history of this time.
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Originally posted by Malthus


Boarding school?!? How old are you Dimwit? No offence, but I kinda assumed that you were at least in your 20s or 30s, from your writing abilities ... if not, you write very maturely for your age, and with a quite astounding grasp of the history of this time.

Heh, I'm a 16yr. old with a huge interest in History and Geography. And my English teacher is having orgasms over what how well she thinks I'll do in my English GCSE (and she's quite pretty as well:D).
But no worries about it. ;)
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
I'm going to try and start to edit all my posts so that they include all the ideas mentioned after their creation, and allow for a free-flowing accurate alternate history.
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Originally posted by Malthus
It is interesting to note that "steppe empires" almost inevitably proved ephemeral. The longer-lived ones appear to have survived by adopting one of the religions of the settled peoples - such as the adoption of Islam by the Golden Horde or the adoption of Judaism by the Khazars. Presumably such religions had a stablizing effect. Christian European Mongols would certainly be an interesting variation...


Sorry to bring up an old point, but the author of "The Mongols" (David Morgan) is under the impression that the reasons why the Yuan and Ilkhanate collapsed so quickly was the assimilation of the Mongols with the locals. He says that the GOlden Horde lasted longer, for they considered Russia to be peripheral to their world, and the positioning of their capital on the Qipchaq steppes ensured that contact with the Russians was minimal, and the superior military nomadic life was not abandoned, as was the case in Yuan CHina and the Ilkhanate.
As he says, "It was above all essential that the man on horseback should succeed in staying there".
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
By the way, I've decided to go with the descendants of the Khwarazm-shah being the rulers of Azerbaijan...

Azerbaijan
A relative of Jalal al-Din, son of the last Khwarazm-shah, along with with several of his troops fled the hunting force under the command of Subotai. This force was designed to hunt down the Khwarazm-shah, who died a lonely death on an island in the Caspian Sea.
After Subotai's forces had moved north into Russia and were done with slaughtering locals in Azerbaijan, this relative (Abba Ismail) set himself up in the ensuing power vacuum, and made his capital at Baku.
Shia Azerbaijan grew and grew, coming into conflict with the Sunni Caliphate (destroyed by a combined Persian-Azerbaijani force), and the Ayyubids of Syria (destroyed by an Azerbaijani force). They quickly became a major power, vying for control of Iraq with the Mamluks.
One could ask: why did Abba Ismail not proclaim a new Khwarazm empire? Well, to do so would have brought the unwarranted attention of the Mongols (who did not like the Khwarazm-shah for his actions). Also, Abba Ismail was a relative descended from a female relative, thus making his claim less legitimate in the eyes of others.
The invasion by Timur turned things pear-shaped in the eyes of the Azerbaijanis. Not only were their lands in Iraq lost, but Timur and his descendants were fighting a long, costly and destructive war in the Caucasus against the Golden Horde and the Caucasus Pact (of which Azerbaijan is part of). So by 1419, Azerbaijan was in decline, having had its glory days in the 14th century.
 
Last edited:

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Dimwit


Sorry to bring up an old point, but the author of "The Mongols" (David Morgan) is under the impression that the reasons why the Yuan and Ilkhanate collapsed so quickly was the assimilation of the Mongols with the locals. He says that the GOlden Horde lasted longer, for they considered Russia to be peripheral to their world, and the positioning of their capital on the Qipchaq steppes ensured that contact with the Russians was minimal, and the superior military nomadic life was not abandoned, as was the case in Yuan CHina and the Ilkhanate.
As he says, "It was above all essential that the man on horseback should succeed in staying there".

Yes, but what about the Ottoman Turks? Not to mention the Manchu Ch'ing dynasty? Or for that matter the Mamluks? All of these relatively long-lasting dynasties or institutions were based on acceptance of a certain amount of assimilation with the culture in which they ruled ... and in the case of the Ottomans and Mamluks, with the acceptance of Islam.

The Golden Horde of course accepted Islam as well, so that the use of this grouping as an example does not invalidate the thesis.

I guess the point is not whether "assimilation" per se proved advantageous to a lengthy rule, but rather that the steppe nomadic empires had to find SOME principles of organization which would prevent their inherent tendancy to fragment on the death of a powerful leader. Usually these principles could not be found in traditional steppe nomad culture, and so had to be found elsewhere - generally, by borrowing institutions from the more advanced settled societies. In addition, adoption of "non-nomad" ways were typically necessary in order to effectively govern ... the Golden Horde was possibly unique in the fact that it lived in a "predator-prey" relationship with the Russian principalities for so very long.

The adoption of a "settled people" religion had a number of benefits. It provided religious sanction for rule. It could make the settled peoples so ruled more content with their lot, and less likely to rebel. It provided the institutions which could legitimize the rule, and the succession of rulers - as in the case of the adoption by the Ottomans of the sultinate/caliphate. Above all, a certain amount of assimilation was necessary to provide a bureaucratic structure which could survive the death of a ruler, and provide a structure which a successor could inherit....
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Dimwit


Heh, I'm a 16yr. old with a huge interest in History and Geography. And my English teacher is having orgasms over what how well she thinks I'll do in my English GCSE (and she's quite pretty as well:D).
But no worries about it. ;)

Well, I'll be damned ...:D

I myself am 34 years old, likewise with a huge interest in history. I would never have been able to pull off a project like this at 16, though.

If I may make a suggestion, why not get some credit for this? If I was in your shoes, I'd find a sympathetic teacher and see if I could submit the "alternative history", together with an introduction explaining how it came to be developed (with input/argument over the Internet), as a history or writing project ... I'm sure there would be some teaches who would go for such an unconventional idea!

Perhaps your pretty English teacher ... (don't forget that recent scandal where a female teacher was aquitted in England for having sex with some of her students ... so be careful!:p )
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
Yeah, I suppose that some assimilation allowed for the nomads to be more readily accepted by their subjects. And certainly the Mongols borrowed some administrative structures from their friends the Khitans and the Uighurs, two ethnic groups thought to have such a profound effect upon the Mongol way of control.
The Mongols definitely thought that keeping existing structures of administration was more beneficial than razing everything and building up from scratch. But I suppose (from what I've read) that the problems of the Ilkhanate and the Yuan was that they were so involved with the government, and still had the bad habits of overtaxing their non-Mongol subjects, that rule was not very effective. But in the case of the Golden Horde, the Grand Prince of Russia (i.e. of Muscovy) was granted the privilege of overseeing tax collection and the like, meaning less of the bad Mongol habits could ruin things. But hey, that's just one person's interpretation.

And I doubt that any of my teachers would be that interested... though since I'm doing the IB next year, which includes an extended essay (on anything I wish), this could be a possible thing. And yes, how could I forget the whole Amy Gehring issue? Don't worry, I'll be very careful (hehe...) ;)
 

unmerged(5459)

Iron-Fisted People's Dictator
Aug 22, 2001
1.744
0
www.geocities.com
By the way, Malthus:
Whaddaya think? Should I go with the Ottomans, or Baiju's Saljuq khanate?