The Byzantine Empire Vs the Mongols: Place your bets.

[Jerzy_I]

Well the Mongols were not civilized they were barbarians. Roads were developed for infantry. The mongols nomadic origins made roads a problem not a help. Horses especially unshod are hurt by hard or graveled surfaces .

The mongols were not major builders they were conquerors. Not sure about what all the arguement is about unless everyone is simply talking about the beginning of the mongol advance into eastern europe. Yes these can probably be classed as more of a raid then conquest.

However eventually the mongols set up several empires .Empire of the Grand Khan...Empire of the Golden Horde...Empire of Chagatai...Empire of the Il-Khan.

just my two cents...

 

[HolisticGod]

Yozhik,

While there's no way to assess such epochal development as industrialization-and by that measure the Chinese came closest during the Classical Han period when their engineering and civil organization far surpassed Rome's and certainly not under the Song and the northern dyansties, this statement---

"If China had been that advanced back then, why was it nothing more than a puny feudal kingdom in the 19th century? Russia has been hit with Mongols as well, yet it saw the first factory in 1600s and major industrialization in 1700s."

---is rubbish. England and Holland did not hit "major industrialization" in the 1700s, much less Russia. And in the seventeenth century, the only factory in Europe that could be called "industrial," much less "post-industrial," was the Arsenal of Venice. Only munitions, ships and ordinance came under regulated, systemic production (the definition of industry) in the eighteenth, and only in particular regions for particular periods.

Definitely not in the Russia of Peter's, or even Catherine's, time.

Moreover, the point you're making here ignores a couple key facts-mostly that the target of the Mongol invasion, Kievan Russia, was all but annihilated and never recovered. The rise of Muscovy can no more be linked to the cultural and political forces that were hit (and obliterated) by the Horde than Byzantium can to Republican Rome.

 

[Damocles]

Nicaea, even though it didn't have Constantinople, did a pretty damn good job of reclaiming alot of western Anatolia. There are those that speculate it could have acted as a formidable bulwark against the Turks, if they hadn't retaken Constantinople and all it's western troubles.

 

[Damocles]

Basically, I think it would be fun to once in a while have to deal with colonial chinese fleets in Africa and Europe in the 1500s in EU2 as the Middle Kingdom goes bok-choi and colonizes everything in sight.

Like EUII 1.05?

 

[Snall]

Seriously, how can you say the Mongols "didn't happen"?? Thats like those people that say the genocide in WW2 didn't happen. But anyway...

 

[ZhugeKongming]

Seriously, how can you say the Mongols "didn't happen"?? Thats like those people that say the genocide in WW2 didn't happen. But anyway...

Aye, I'd like to know what revisionist nonsense Yozhik has been reading. Something by David Irving's grandpa, perhaps?

 

[L G]

would definiately be an interesting read....

 

[unmerged(12555)]

KrisKannon,

I'm sorry you're taking this so personal. If you can get past that, I'd love to continue, however.

"mongols lived off the land, so they didnt need to bring supplies with them, they would just take them from the land they conquered. makes it a lot easier to forage when you have been doing it your entire life."

I challenge you to calculate logistics for mounting a winter-based raid across Siberia. We're talking thousands of miles with no food in sight. If Mongols burnt everything, where did they find forage on the way back? Mind you, just Russian period alone saw three separate invations (1223, 1236-1238, 1239-1240). Napoleon perfectly illustrated that one can not successfully trace back his own steps once the countryland has been plundered, and the Mongols here have done it three times in a row, all with success.

Roads are a very important part of a civilization. While your advancing troops may need no paved highways, your messengers do. They need a place to stay overnight and to rest their horses. And they need to know where are they going.

"these mongolian horsemen are made of a lot tougher stuff than those french men you are talking about"

I am sorry, but is this based on any facts?

"no cities were found because they burned everything to the ground. nothing was spared their wrath, not even moscow."

In that case how come there were cities standing in Russia, Persia, and China, regions, overrun by "Mongols" in the 13th century? In case of Russia there is only one case when a city was razed to ashes (Ryazan), but it came back not a decade later a few miles up the river.

Just my 2 cents.

How about Atilla? He did it! Then why shouldn't Genghis Khan be able?

 

[unmerged(6105)]

KrisKannon,

I'm sorry you're taking this so personal. If you can get past that, I'd love to continue, however.

"mongols lived off the land, so they didnt need to bring supplies with them, they would just take them from the land they conquered. makes it a lot easier to forage when you have been doing it your entire life."

I challenge you to calculate logistics for mounting a winter-based raid across Siberia. We're talking thousands of miles with no food in sight. If Mongols burnt everything, where did they find forage on the way back? Mind you, just Russian period alone saw three separate invations (1223, 1236-1238, 1239-1240). Napoleon perfectly illustrated that one can not successfully trace back his own steps once the countryland has been plundered, and the Mongols here have done it three times in a row, all with success.

Roads are a very important part of a civilization. While your advancing troops may need no paved highways, your messengers do. They need a place to stay overnight and to rest their horses. And they need to know where are they going.

"these mongolian horsemen are made of a lot tougher stuff than those french men you are talking about"

I am sorry, but is this based on any facts?

"no cities were found because they burned everything to the ground. nothing was spared their wrath, not even moscow."

In that case how come there were cities standing in Russia, Persia, and China, regions, overrun by "Mongols" in the 13th century? In case of Russia there is only one case when a city was razed to ashes (Ryazan), but it came back not a decade later a few miles up the river.

Just my 2 cents.

Noonsense post.

But the mongols did not brun everything on their way. their usual tactic was to burn the first city that did not surrender to make the others surrender.

Have you seen anything of Mongolia? Wether they where tougher than the French or not, is not the point, they where used to cold and living a sparse life. They where nomads and lived in tents. They hunted their food as theu always done. they did not have 2 horses per man, they had 3 or 4 horses per man.

 

[Varyar]

"at the time of Genghis & Co.'s shenanigans, China was only about 1-2 centuries away from an industrial revolution similar to late 18th/early 19th-century europe. No mongol invasion very likely would have meant that such a thing came to pass, and China would have been the most advanced and most insanely powerful nation on the face of the earth.
Basically, I think it would be fun to once in a while have to deal with colonial chinese fleets in Africa and Europe in the 1500s in EU2 as the Middle Kingdom goes bok-choi and colonizes everything in sight"

Is this true? Was China really this close to an industrial revolution? If so.. man.. that changes my whole philosophy on history!

Well, yes and no. They were certainly advanced enough as far as technology and knowledge is concerned, yet their enormouos population was one major factor reducing the interest in developing labor-saving machinery. Someone more knowledgable can probably explain it more in detail, but all things considered, an industrial revolution in China during the Middle Ages was certainly not impossible, had the mongols not invaded.

In fact, without the mongols both India and the islamic world, as well as China, might've turned into something completely different...

 

[Phystarstk]

"In fact, without the mongols both India and the islamic world, as well as China, might've turned into something completely different..."

So... could we say that the rise of western europe may have partly been due to the crushing of possible competitors by the mongolian horde? That really makes things interesting...

 

[unmerged(12746)]

So... could we say that the rise of western europe may have partly been due to the crushing of possible competitors by the mongolian horde? That really makes things interesting...

We might be able to say that the mongols inspired the desire to know more about Asia, and spurrened the age of discovery, maybe not the sole reason but certainly not a -non factor-

 

[crazy canuck]

"In fact, without the mongols both India and the islamic world, as well as China, might've turned into something completely different..."

So... could we say that the rise of western europe may have partly been due to the crushing of possible competitors by the mongolian horde? That really makes things interesting...

I take your post to mean that the mongols had a negative effect. But didn't they also bring peace, stability and opportunities to trade, etc to the areas that were conquered.

It is difficult to guess at what would have occurred in their absence. Would another culture have become dominant? Difficult to say.

 

[Varyar]

"In fact, without the mongols both India and the islamic world, as well as China, might've turned into something completely different..."

So... could we say that the rise of western europe may have partly been due to the crushing of possible competitors by the mongolian horde? That really makes things interesting...

Well, like Odin said above.

Still, if we look at China, it didn't just lay down and die after the mongols, they were ahead/on equal footing with westerners as far as technology go up to about the 18th century in most areas.

Europe would probably have risen nevertheless, due to a number of factors such as access to natural resources, but with much more fierce "competition".

 

[unmerged(9895)]

KrisKannon,

I'm sorry you're taking this so personal. If you can get past that, I'd love to continue, however.

"mongols lived off the land, so they didnt need to bring supplies with them, they would just take them from the land they conquered. makes it a lot easier to forage when you have been doing it your entire life."

I challenge you to calculate logistics for mounting a winter-based raid across Siberia. We're talking thousands of miles with no food in sight. If Mongols burnt everything, where did they find forage on the way back? Mind you, just Russian period alone saw three separate invations (1223, 1236-1238, 1239-1240). Napoleon perfectly illustrated that one can not successfully trace back his own steps once the countryland has been plundered, and the Mongols here have done it three times in a row, all with success.

Roads are a very important part of a civilization. While your advancing troops may need no paved highways, your messengers do. They need a place to stay overnight and to rest their horses. And they need to know where are they going.

"these mongolian horsemen are made of a lot tougher stuff than those french men you are talking about"

I am sorry, but is this based on any facts?

"no cities were found because they burned everything to the ground. nothing was spared their wrath, not even moscow."

In that case how come there were cities standing in Russia, Persia, and China, regions, overrun by "Mongols" in the 13th century? In case of Russia there is only one case when a city was razed to ashes (Ryazan), but it came back not a decade later a few miles up the river.

Just my 2 cents.

winter based raids across siberia? that would make no sense at all. wouldnt it be much more intelligent to cross siberia during the spring/summer time, when there is plenty of food and animals to be had, i mean, these people were baiscally nomadic horsemen who learned to hunt as soon as they were old enough to handle a bow and arrow. by winter time they could of crossed into warmer climates and have found shelter from the harsh weather. this is how i would of planed my attack, and i am by no means a millitary strategist.

and yes, it is based on fact. do you know what the climate of mongolia is? do you even know where it is? the plains are warm-cool in the summer and spring, while they drop way below freezing in the winter, colder than even the russians are used to.

what i ment was no cities were "founded", cities obviously existed, but the usual treatment they recieved upon the arrival of the horde was surrender or have your city burnt to the ground. since most refused, most were destroyer, only to be rebuild, and overran one leader or another of the horde. some things are exagerated, like the spreading of salt over the land, which was raley done if at ever, but often times whole cities needed to be rebuilt.

and for your messengers, the mongolians created a system in which they built an outpost, then would build another one days travel on horseback further ahead. this way the messenger could carry his message at full speed so without worrying about exhausting his horse, because he had only one day to travel. at the next outpost a new messenger, on a new horse, would ride at full speed to the next, and so on and so on, untill they arrived at the most advanced outpost, where it would not be hard to locate the main army-follow the cloud of dust. it was this way that they were able to control such a vast area of land while being away to conquer new lands. news of what was happening in china quickly reached the men who were fighting in hungary.

any other questions?

 

[Jerzy_I]

Yes although china did have to undergo massive reconstruction after the mongol occupation and the popularist rebellions which led to the Ming ruling class having a major distrust of the literati.

Although China did recover the cost was a factor but certainly not the only factor which led to china's striving for stability which slowed china's growth intellectually economically and socially.

I think it wasn't till the early 16th centuary till china had its next "renaissance".

 

[nalivayko]

I am too late to support Yozhik in his crusade, but I will still throw my two cents: there were no Mongols. There was a nation that scared the crap out of the West, the very same nation that did so during the time of Attila (we called him Gatylo ). The very same nation still exists today, but since it's a shame to admit that it could do such a thing in the past, the historians invented 'invincible' nomads that came somewhere north of China.

Mysteries of history... So hard to prove, I know.

If anybody knows which language group is related to Etruscan language, they will also know which nation I was taking about

 

[Jerzy_I]

Having read alot of crackpot theories about etruscan almost afraid to ask....

So then who were those nomads who came out and devestated and concquored so much of asia???

 

[NimaFoulaam]

<< edited by the author >>

 

[unmerged(16588)]

Meh, there are people who say that Basque is related to etruscan. And that Basques are descendents of neanderthals. People say a lot of things.

The whole industrialized China point I brought up simply because I just wrote an essay on the historical importance of Genghis Khan So I figured I was feeling smart. Anyhow, at the time, the southern Song dynasty was quite united and quite prosperous. I think it was the depradations of the mongols on an economic level as well as making the chinese even more paranoid about outsiders that led them to sit in their little shell and not bother anybody. And hey, I learned this all from History 110, so it must be true (even though my prof pronounces Shari'a like 'She-Ra').