Lithuania Vs. Mongols

[CaptainPolyp]

Hard to say whether the Mongols would have conquered Japan.
I don't think the biggest problem for the Mongols are the mountains. They conquered Korea, the Caucasus, the Iranian Plateau and made their way into North Afghanistan. They were not just horsemen... Armies of their conquered realms (notably chinese) were the backbone Kublai's armies by this time.
Rather, I would suggest that the most determining factor would be the weaker support of the armies due to the fact that Japan is an Archipel. This makes it harder to field siege engines (Chinese and Muslim siege engineers played a very big part in the success of the Mongols in mainland Eurasia). I guess Japan was also able to use an efficient fleet, quite adapted to fighting across different islands. And the Japanese would be far more experienced doing this.

 

[DarthJF]

No tsunamis doesn't mean that they conquer Japan.

They would have lost anyway.

Yeah, people forget that the reason the Mongol fleet was destroyed by typhoon, is that it was still at sea, because they had failed to establish a beachhead after nearly two months of fighting.

 

[DarthJF]

Would they? Were the Japanese really united, and devoted to resistance?

They were. Kamakura shogunate was at the height of its power during the time of the invasions. That's why Japanese managed to make such extensive defensive preparations after the first invasion.

Had Mongols arrived 50 years later the story might have been different.

 

[Avernite]

Hard to say whether the Mongols would have conquered Japan.
I don't think the biggest problem for the Mongols are the mountains. They conquered Korea, the Caucasus, the Iranian Plateau and made their way into North Afghanistan. They were not just horsemen... Armies of their conquered realms (notably chinese) were the backbone Kublai's armies by this time.
Rather, I would suggest that the most determining factor would be the weaker support of the armies due to the fact that Japan is an Archipel. This makes it harder to field siege engines (Chinese and Muslim siege engineers played a very big part in the success of the Mongols in mainland Eurasia). I guess Japan was also able to use an efficient fleet, quite adapted to fighting across different islands. And the Japanese would be far more experienced doing this.

While the Iranian plateau is high, it's a rather traditional nomadic haunt, because it's mostly a high plateau.

What really hurt them were deep territories of bad nomad territory. The Caucasus was probably just not 'deep' enough from the Russian Steppe and Iranian Plateau. Granted, that doesn't explain how Hungary held out against the mongols, so maybe fortresses are a bigger factor than I am summarizing now.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Granted, that doesn't explain how Hungary held out against the mongols, so maybe fortresses are a bigger factor than I am summarizing now.

Hungary did not really held out. The Mongols did not conquer Hungary but they devastated it before leaving (for internal politics reasons, leaving Batu Khan and the Golden Horde alone for conquering the West. So he prefered consolidating his power in Russia, and raid as far as Bulgaria).

About the Mountains, OK for Iran, maybe OK for the Causasus. What about Korea and Tibet? No... really, I don't think moutains are such a barrage for the Mongols, especially in the later period (Kublai Khan if we're still talking about Japan) where they did not rely as much on Cavalry (at least in China and Middle East, The Chagatai and Golden Horde are different). Although, as for any mountain range, it makes the conquest harder for any army.

But about Japan, I think that even if the Mongols had been able to conquer it (provided they could deal with the far superior naval experience of the Japanese), they would not have kept it very long... It would have been the same than for South-East Asia (Champa for instance); tributary/vassal for a time, then a de facto independence. Even Korea, which was vassalized much longer, was never a loyal subject and had periods of de facto independance, before the Mongols reminded them, until the reminders stopped).

 

[Avernite]

Hungary did not really held out. The Mongols did not conquer Hungary but they devastated it before leaving (for internal politics reasons, leaving Batu Khan and the Golden Horde alone for conquering the West. So he prefered consolidating his power in Russia, and raid as far as Bulgaria).

Say someone attacks Vienna, and devastates the country-side, but subsequently falls back before Vienna falls. Would you say Vienna has not really held out?

 

[DarthJF]

About the Mountains, OK for Iran, maybe OK for the Causasus. What about Korea and Tibet? No... really, I don't think moutains are such a barrage for the Mongols, especially in the later period (Kublai Khan if we're still talking about Japan) where they did not rely as much on Cavalry (at least in China and Middle East, The Chagatai and Golden Horde are different). Although, as for any mountain range, it makes the conquest harder for any army.

It's probably best to say that Mongols lost their advantage at the mountains. They didn't have pokemon style elemental weakness that made them automatically lose at a mountainous terrain, they just didn't fare better than anyone else did.

While they were able to overwhelm Korea, they struggled mightily doing so, and never achieved full control of the country. A record not dissimilar to that of various Chinese dynasties trying to impose their rule over Korea.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Say someone attacks Vienna, and devastates the country-side, but subsequently falls back before Vienna falls. Would you say Vienna has not really held out?

Said like that OK... but the reasons why the Mongols did not conquer Hungary are not a mystery. The conflict in Poland/Hungary lasted around a year (a bit more). Taking the Hungarian fortresses would have needed a longer war (the invasion of Transoxiana lasted 2 years, with pretty long sieges, the invasion of Russia 3 years). And due to internal political matters*, the Mongol Empire needed their ressources elsewhere and let Batu Khan manage the Western part of the Empire (he cut himself from the rest of the empire by refusing for years to attend to the Kurultai installing Guyuk).

* A 5 years regency with political turmoil, followed by Guyuk's very short reign and finally, a civil war followed by Mongka's reign, who did not care about the West at all.

It's probably best to say that Mongols lost their advantage at the mountains. They didn't have pokemon style elemental weakness that made them automatically lose at a mountainous terrain, they just didn't fare better than anyone else did.

yes

While they were able to overwhelm Korea, they struggled mightily doing so, and never achieved full control of the country. A record not dissimilar to that of various Chinese dynasties trying to impose their rule over Korea.

Yes again... Korea has been a pain in the ass for the Mongols.
But I find it hard to compare generally long lasting Chinese dynasties with the short lived Mongol Empire (after Mongka khan, it already began to lose its unity... China was not even conquered yet).
Besides, the Mongols did not try impose their administration in Korea. They vassalized them, much like Georgia, Champa, Armenia (which was a voluntary vassalization or Novgorod/Pskov (but this is under the Golden Horde not the Mongol Empire proper).
Afterwards, the Yuan dynasty did better at keeping Korea under their influence, pretty much for the duration of the dynasty (a bit less actually)

 

[Avernite]

Said like that OK... but the reasons why the Mongols did not conquer Hungary are not a mystery. The conflict in Poland/Hungary lasted around a year (a bit more). Taking the Hungarian fortresses would have needed a longer war (the invasion of Transoxiana lasted 2 years, with pretty long sieges, the invasion of Russia 3 years). And due to internal political matters*, the Mongol Empire needed their ressources elsewhere and let Batu Khan manage the Western part of the Empire (he cut himself from the rest of the empire by refusing for years to attend to the Kurultai installing Guyuk).

* A 5 years regency with political turmoil, followed by Guyuk's very short reign and finally, a civil war followed by Mongka's reign, who did not care about the West at all.

There were reasons for the withdrawal, yes, and they were not solely the fact that Hungary was still standing from its forts, true... But the regency's probably not it.

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/232/ucalgary_2012_pow_lindsey.pdf?sequence=2

He describes the invasion of Hungary and Kadan’s pursuit of Bela to Trogir on the Adriatic Coast. Then he relates that Kadan, having failed to capture the
Hungarian king, “turned back” into the territory of the Vlachs. At that point in time, Rashid al-Din states, “the news of Khan’s death had not yet reached them.”

 

[IsadorBG]

Hungary and Poland survived because the Mongols could not (or did not want ?) to engage in a long attrition war akin of the many wars against Song and Jin.

One big myth surrounding the Mongols is that the reason they were so succesfull is because they were some kind of invincible army that could conquer anything but if they could be defeated or repulsed even once then it means they could never conquer the one who accomplished such feat.

But this far from true the Mongols suffered numerous setback especially early on against Jin or Xi'a, one should not take the Iranian or Russian campaign as the only measurment of Mongol capabilites.

If the enemy hides behind fortress then burn the countryside. It might takes decades but eventually they would be no one ledt to feed the soldiers defending the forts there is a reason why the Mongols were only beaten by the Nazis in the deathtolll.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

There were reasons for the withdrawal, yes, and they were not solely the fact that Hungary was still standing from its forts, true... But the regency's probably not it.

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/232/ucalgary_2012_pow_lindsey.pdf?sequence=2

thanks for the thesis. this should be an interesting read.
I did not wanted to imply that Ogedei's death was the cause of the withdrawal :/ . When referring to the Regency (then Guyuk, then Revolution, then Mongka, spanning 15-20 years), I was more referring to why they did not come back to it. That was not very explicit I guess.
But yep, properly conquering Hungary would have take much more time than this first offensive.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Hungary and Poland survived because the Mongols could not (or did not want ?) to engage in a long attrition war akin of the many wars against Song and Jin.

One big myth surrounding the Mongols is that the reason they were so succesfull is because they were some kind of invincible army that could conquer anything but if they could be defeated or repulsed even once then it means they could never conquer the one who accomplished such feat.

But this far from true the Mongols suffered numerous setback especially early on against Jin or Xi'a, one should not take the Iranian or Russian campaign as the only measurment of Mongol capabilites.

For sure... Jin was very long to stabilize. If I remember well, the realm was not long to conquer but afterward, instauring some kind of order was harsh. the Xi'a I don't know tho. The conquest of Song China lasted around 30 years.
About Russia and Iran, it was pretty quick and decisive, but I think it is mainly because of a weak central power.

 

[IsadorBG]

For sure... Jin was very long to stabilize. If I remember well, the realm was not long to conquer but afterward, instauring some kind of order was harsh. the Xi'a I don't know tho. The conquest of Song China lasted around 30 years.
About Russia and Iran, it was pretty quick and decisive, but I think it is mainly because of a weak central power.

Actually it took 20+ years to conquer Jin. Genghis himself will not see the end of Jin. They fought to the bitter end and the casualties on both sides were horrific. In fact so much Jin resisted that they did not fall to the Mongols... but to the Song.

Altough the Mongols did much of the groundwork so much so that by the end of the war the destruction was such that the emperor could not find men to conscript and that's china were raising 100 000+ men armies is trivial.

So of course when the Song attacked in the rear the state basically collapsed, it was already barely standing at that point.

For Xi'a it rebelled many times against the Mongols and this where the Mongols got their reputation as terrible conquerors with mountain of skulls replacing the Xi'a populace safe for those who were wise enough to surrender without fight.
In modern time it was clearly a genocide done so that Xi'a can never rise to challenge the Mongols again (or ever again in fact).

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Actually it took 20+ years to conquer Jin. Genghis himself will not see the end of Jin. They fought to the bitter end and the casualties on both sides were horrific. In fact so much Jin resisted that they did not fall to the Mongols... but to the Song.

Yes I messed up here thanks for correcting. I just thought about the conquest of Northern Jin, under Genghis Khan... The dynasty remained quite a bit a time afterwards as you corrected.

And for Xi'a, I was mainly aware that they refused to send troops and ressources for the conquest of Central Asia, leading to their genocide. Thanks for the input.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

When talking about "the Mongols conquering (all of) China -- finishing off the Song dynasty in southern 1/2 of China", and "the Mongols attempting (twice) to conquer Japan", was that really the 'Mongols', though? Or was it really just a Mongol ruler, leading the armies of (early on / mostly) northern China... and eventually the whole of China.

I mean, when Kublai Khan was battling/sieging the Song, how many Altaic troops were really in his armies at that point? And later, with the ill-fated expeditions to Japan, it must have been even less. But even in the former scenario, it's hard to imagine a bunch of horse archers succeeding in the rugged terrain of southern China, against a series of great fortifications -- not unlike what you'd find in central/western Europe at the time.

So, I started this thread asking 'how much credit should the Lithuanians/Poles/Hungarians get' for 'saving the West from a Mongol rampage'. And apparently the answer is; not much -- if any. Now the question is; how much credit should 'the Mongols' themselves get... for actually conquering 'all of China'?

In EU4 when you 'reform Great Yuan', your units stop being horde units, and become Chinese (along w/ the tech group)... didn't the same thing happen IRL? It was basically a coup, thanks to brutal & clever tactics that led the Mongols to victory in northern China... and put Mongol rulership in charge there, at least for a while. But wasn't it really Chinese armies, under that Mongol rulership, that really conquered the whole of China? -To say nothing of other conquests/attempts in the region.

 

[IsadorBG]

That such a weird question I am not sure what answer you looking for... .

The Mongols still used their own for the conquest of Song but to achieve the conquest of such foe they had to pull all the ressource their empire had (or to be more accurate the ressource the Golden Horde and Ikhanate were willing to share) so you could find lots of Turkic and other non-mongols steppe warrior and many Arabic engineers to create siege weapons (Maybe even some Frankish crusaders participated).

So the army was definetly rather cosmopolitan and of course as you said they were plenty of Han and Manchu from the remnant of what was Jin fighting for the Mongols whether they were the majority is debatable honestly, I would say it depends of the battle or the period. The war laster a long time afterall.

As for whether Mongols should get credit well they get it for having conquering an empire that had the ressource to conquer China in the first place and having rulers having the intelligence to use it.
Only a fool would limit himself to one small ethnicity when you have the greatest (land) empire ever created.
And Mongols have always shown to be very adaptive and open-minded when warfare was involved (not always true for administration unfortunatly).

And that's why we also can talk about the merits of Poland and Hungary against the Mongols when they really mostly fought Tatars.

 

[Henry IX]

When talking about "the Mongols conquering (all of) China -- finishing off the Song dynasty in southern 1/2 of China", and "the Mongols attempting (twice) to conquer Japan", was that really the 'Mongols', though? Or was it really just a Mongol ruler, leading the armies of (early on / mostly) northern China... and eventually the whole of China.

I mean, when Kublai Khan was battling/sieging the Song, how many Altaic troops were really in his armies at that point? And later, with the ill-fated expeditions to Japan, it must have been even less. But even in the former scenario, it's hard to imagine a bunch of horse archers succeeding in the rugged terrain of southern China, against a series of great fortifications -- not unlike what you'd find in central/western Europe at the time.

So, I started this thread asking 'how much credit should the Lithuanians/Poles/Hungarians get' for 'saving the West from a Mongol rampage'. And apparently the answer is; not much -- if any. Now the question is; how much credit should 'the Mongols' themselves get... for actually conquering 'all of China'?

In EU4 when you 'reform Great Yuan', your units stop being horde units, and become Chinese (along w/ the tech group)... didn't the same thing happen IRL? It was basically a coup, thanks to brutal & clever tactics that led the Mongols to victory in northern China... and put Mongol rulership in charge there, at least for a while. But wasn't it really Chinese armies, under that Mongol rulership, that really conquered the whole of China? -To say nothing of other conquests/attempts in the region.

This is partially correct. The 'Mongol' armies that invaded Southern China were a mixture of steppe cavalry and Chinese infantry and engineering. The Mongol cavalry provided an important element that meant that the Song could not beat the Mongol/Chinese armies in the field. The Chinese forces covered the weaknesses of the steppe cavalry in holding territory and sieges.

So the Mongols were a critical part of the force that conquered the Chinese, but were not solely responsible.

 

[Health]

with the ill-fated expeditions to Japan, it must have been even less. But even in the former scenario

Most of the actual invasion force was Chinese/Korean, there were Mongols in it however they were the vastly outnumbered. The ships and there crews were Korean, whilst most of the landing forces were Chinese.