Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Mongols overran the Khitan, Jurchen and Chinese empires in the 12th century

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    The Mongols lost becuase there were not enough of them to sustain military operations, especially after they settled and got fat. The Tumans under Subetai were far different in skill and ability compared to those who were defeated by Baibars.
    There are some (light) parallels between what happened to the Yuan in China and what happened to us in Iraq. Going in was easy but holding the place turned out to be much harder when everyone turned against us. An army built for conquest is not the same as one built for occupation.

    In the Yuan's case it's as if the US Army went into Iraq, then settled there and started using it as the tax base, managed the whole thing more ineptly than Paul Bremer, got fat, lazy, corrupt and greedy, put into place Al Qaeda levels of obnoxiousness, and on top of that suffered multiple large scale natural disasters and rampant inflation brought about by issuance of paper currency without sound management, and kept the mess going for about 70 years.

    In other places that were easier to manage, where the Mongols were more fortunate and behaved more reasonably, they succeeded for the long term.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    The Mongols lost becuase there were not enough of them to sustain military operations, especially after they settled and got fat. The Tumans under Subetai were far different in skill and ability compared to those who were defeated by Baibars.
    They weren't settled and fat when they initially fought the Mamluks. The Ilkhanate also had to fight on two other frontiers - and did so very successfully throughout their existence.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    The Mongols lost becuase there were not enough of them to sustain military operations, especially after they settled and got fat. The Tumans under Subetai were far different in skill and ability compared to those who were defeated by Baibars.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by Mithridates View Post
    Did the Song assume the Mongols were more of the same desert rabble they had beaten repeatedly in the past, or did the sting of repeated defeats at the hands of the Jurchens blind them to the Mongol threat? You'd think Song spies would have provided ample intelligence about the methods used by the Mongols to literally exterminate the Khitans.
    Neither. The Southern Song was making way too much money hiding south of the Yangtze to care. Once they lost the North, the economy of the South actually grew. They figured they could keep the barbarians north of the river indefinitely while skimping on defense. Meanwhile everyone was happily enjoying the "peace dividend".

    Eventually the Mongols figured out how to build better siege equipment and ships with the help of their Arab subjects and the Yangtze defenses collapsed, with many Chinese commanders defecting to the other side at which point the chicken came home to roost.

    The whole thing took about 50 years, longer if you count the Jurchen period before that. It was not a cake walk for the Mongols, but the Song was certainly complicit in their own defeat. The responsibility for the defeat, however, cannot be blamed on individual corrupt officials or inept emperors. The entire society was complicit.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    Did the Song assume the Mongols were more of the same desert rabble they had beaten repeatedly in the past, or did the sting of repeated defeats at the hands of the Jurchens blind them to the Mongol threat? You'd think Song spies would have provided ample intelligence about the methods used by the Mongols to literally exterminate the Khitans.
    The Song had been on a losing streak up to that point anyways. They worked with the Jurchens in the hopes of finishing the Khitan and then lost the North so it seeing the Mongols as a savoir was just another case of making a bad wager.

    IF Genghis Khan were alive, he wouldn't see the Mughals as part of his clan or nation. The mughals were different from the Mongols.
    The Turkic elite who thundered into India were Uzbeks, Moghuls, and Timurids. Several of the Uzbek tribal elite who joined up could, and did, claim male line descent through Jochi. The feeble hostage the British sent into exile in 1857 might not live up to the Timurid glories but the early elites and even the soldiers of fortune who came in during the later 17th and early 18th century had plenty of Central Asian street cred.

    The Mongols fell into internal disarray during the Yuan Dynasty, then the Ming showwd up with massive well organized armies, Calvary formations trained and advised by mongol splinter factions, and large scale use of firearms.
    The Ming also suffered under one of the worst period of raiding from the steppes, had an emperor taken hostage by the Mongols and ended up replaced by a state which relied heavily on Mongol cavalry, along with their own cavalry, and played Mongol marriage politics.

    The mongols lost because they were not civilization builders. They just plunder and move on. They do not have staying power. They do not build the necessary foundation blocks that make up a last longing empire.
    Wrong. Their empire fostered more then enough successor states run by Turko-Mongols on the places they conquered to prove that false - Mughals, Jalayirids, Crimean Khanate, Khiva, etc. It's only a "truth" among people who stop "reading" after Kublai Khan, or listening to other people on TV who stopped reading after Kublai Khan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mithridates
    replied
    Originally posted by citanon View Post
    Later the Song allied with the Yuan to destroy the Jurchens. By that time the army was in such poor shape that its pitiful performance in the campaign gave the mongols the confidence to invade.
    Did the Song assume the Mongols were more of the same desert rabble they had beaten repeatedly in the past, or did the sting of repeated defeats at the hands of the Jurchens blind them to the Mongol threat? You'd think Song spies would have provided ample intelligence about the methods used by the Mongols to literally exterminate the Khitans.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by Triple C View Post
    If memory serves, Song Dynasty executed one of their finest soldiers who was on the verge of destroying the rival Jin Dynasty up north.
    Yuefei was one if several important generals in Song campaigns vs the Jurchens. The Song could have defeated the Jurchens but there was a strategic pull back, partly because the emperor realized that a more complete victory would presage the return of his predecessor, who was a Jurchen captive.

    Later the Song allied with the Yuan to destroy the Jurchens. By that time the army was in such poor shape that its pitiful performance in the campaign gave the mongols the confidence to invade.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mithridates
    replied
    Originally posted by Triple C View Post
    If memory serves, Song Dynasty executed one of their finest soldiers who was on the verge of destroying the rival Jin Dynasty up north.
    A lot of well-known historical figures had good PR that exaggerated their abilities. Yue Fei had his grandson. Liu Bei and his men had Luo Guanzhong and a thousand years of Homeric myth-making before that. Even if they had beaten the Jurchens, could they have beaten the Mongols later on?

    Leave a comment:


  • Triple C
    replied
    If memory serves, Song Dynasty executed one of their finest soldiers who was on the verge of destroying the rival Jin Dynasty up north.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mithridates
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Not much different. The Southern Song was destined to fall. It was fat and corrupt.
    Did the Song severely under-resource their military, perhaps in fear of the kinds of coups that marked the waning of the Tang dynasty? What I find incredible is that the fabulously wealthy Song fielded 8,000 troops vs 100,000 Mongols during the pivotal Battle of Xiangyang.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Not much different. The Southern Song was destined to fall. It was fat and corrupt.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    or, what if the Southern Song survived?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mithridates
    replied
    What's vaguely interesting is that the Mongols destroyed two kingdoms (Jurchen and Khitan) that might have evolved along English lines - where the Saxons imposed their language on the native Picts/Britons, thereby creating Saxon-speaking kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia) that eventually became England. While the Jurchens became Manchurians, who founded the Qing dynasty, it's clear there was no prospect of the Qing ever imposing the Jurchen language over the entire Chinese population who vastly outnumbered them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    So were the Yuan. Just as the Mughals turned Persian, the Yuan turned Chinese. There was nothing Mongol about living in Palaces and worrying about floods and finances.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blademaster
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Well, no. Various Khanates lasted much longer than the Yuan Dynasty and the Persianized Mongols, the Mughals went on to conquer India.
    IF Genghis Khan were alive, he wouldn't see the Mughals as part of his clan or nation. The mughals were different from the Mongols.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X