What do you mean by failed? every empire has fallen in history, Did they fail also!.
Last edited:
-
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.
What do you mean by failed? every empire has fallen in history, Did they fail also!.
"Failed" is painting it with a broad brush. Maybe if you gave your parameters for success then it could be argued either way.
I'm not sure what you mean. I would have thought the the Mongols and Huns at least would be counted in the successful column.
Well, they all failed to settle in west Europe permanently, they were pushed out of it by Romans, Franks or later Germans.
Then again, there is not much plains in west Europe that nomad horse cultures would wont...
But at some points in history, each of them did make pasta from "regular" armies fighting them (all that pore pesants and serfs)
Depends on what you mean by failed...they obviously didn't reach she atlantic shores, but that doesn't mean they were failures. I mean its like saying since Rome failed because it eventually fell into ruins.
They failed, because they didn't succesfully build a European kingdom and pass it on to their heirs...
I know Germans were by some Huns in WW1, but they dont clasifie as hord like nomadic nation exactly.
They did succeed in Russia though....it took sereral generations for them to completely thow them out.
I think the term "fail" is entirely subjegtive in this context. The Mongols certainly seemed to succede in terms of thier objectives in Eastern Europe.....just as they certainly "failed" to ravage Western Europe.
It certainly is open for conjecture as to what would have happaned had they not experienced political instability. I certainly don't think it was a "forgone conclusion" that they would have penetrated much further into Europe....though they certainly MIGHT have done so.
Heck, I don't even think it was a "forgone" conclusion that they would have taken Vienna. Ancient Warfare has too much uncertainty, too much depends upon the fate of individuals, condition of the battlefield and just plain luck....to predict with certitude the results of a hypothetical battle.
In the game, I think it's best to represent the Invasion by giving the Horde a certain "inertia" factor. As the Horde wins battles it gains inertia. As the Horde takes casualties and pushes into terrain unsuitable for horses it looses inertia. Once the horde reaches a certain "inertia threshold", it ceases it's advance, pulls back some, looses a large amount of strength and goes into defensive mode (i.e. it's main focus of attention has shifted elsewhere).
You could also put in a random check for an event every few years to see if the Hordes leader dies (which would cause a heavy loss of inertia). This would keep players guessing as to how long the Horde would continue attacking even if it wasn't suffering heavly. As for the Horde's millitary, they should be very strong, but still beatable.
This would represent the fear and uncertainty that the Mongols engendered in Europe but still allow the possibility for a capable and dynamic European leader to turn the tide. Which certainly was theoreticaly possible, given the right conditions, combination of troops, leadership and luck.
It certainly is open for conjecture as to what would have happaned had they not experienced political instability. I certainly don't think it was a "forgone conclusion" that they would have penetrated much further into Europe....though they certainly MIGHT have done so.
Heck, I don't even think it was a "forgone" conclusion that they would have taken Vienna. Ancient Warfare has too much uncertainty, too much depends upon the fate of individuals, condition of the battlefield and just plain luck....to predict with certitude the results of a hypothetical battle.
In the game, I think it's best to represent the Invasion by giving the Horde a certain "inertia" factor. As the Horde wins battles it gains inertia. As the Horde takes casualties and pushes into terrain unsuitable for horses it looses inertia. Once the horde reaches a certain "inertia threshold", it ceases it's advance, pulls back some, looses a large amount of strength and goes into defensive mode (i.e. it's main focus of attention has shifted elsewhere).
You could also put in a random check for an event every few years to see if the Hordes leader dies (which would cause a heavy loss of inertia). This would keep players guessing as to how long the Horde would continue attacking even if it wasn't suffering heavly. As for the Horde's millitary, they should be very strong, but still beatable.
This would represent the fear and uncertainty that the Mongols engendered in Europe but still allow the possibility for a capable and dynamic European leader to turn the tide. Which certainly was theoreticaly possible, given the right conditions, combination of troops, leadership and luck.
Yes by that criteria they failed. But to fail presupposes that the actor who failed attempted or intended the action. I don't think you can say they failed at what they attempted. They were not turned back to defeat on the battlefield.
Whether or not they would have been defeated if they had attempted to go further west is a topic of debate in this forum. But to call them a failure for not accomplishing they did not attempt is a bit pointless.
In game terms, I hope CK does not try to allow the Mongols to progress further then they did. It would completely unbalance the game because it would create actual military action which never occured. If the Mongols had attempted to push further west that would have had a profound impact on Western Europe, win or lose.
As Odin and some others have said in other threads there has to be some game impact for the terror the Mongols struck in the hearts of the christian kingdoms and the Papacy. Without knowing more about the mechanics of the game it is difficult to suggest how this could be done - morale decreases, inability to go to war (ie keeping a defensive stand against possible invasion), loss of prestige or possible gaining prestige by the type of actions taken in response to the threat etc...