Hmmm, What If? Maybe it would have not been so bad?

[Kane]

Earlier I made a thread regarding and alternative WWII scenario, here is a similar thread only now let us discuss a scenario not well known to many people.

Reference Link: http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm

In the 1200s Genghis Kahn created the biggest empire ever known. He conquered most of Asia, most of the the Middle East, and half of Europe. So because he was an conquerer, means he was a very bad man, right? Wrong to a certain extent. Other than the conquest of Beijing; Genghis Kahn and the Mongols were relatively merciful to everyone they conquered. Instead of enslaving the people he conquered or force them to convert to a particular religion, he let people have there own life once conquered. Compared to conquers of his time and in the past, he a relatively merciful man.

The Mongol Empire was unlike many empires before. One notable difference is that the empire was rather secular, and there was no official religion. This lead the free religion under the empire where Muslims, Christians, and Mongols alike can worship or believe anything without any fear of persecution from the empire. Unlike the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire did not use the people they conquered as public entertainment such as feeding them to wild animals or gladiatorial combat.

The Mongol Empire may not have had a democracy like in the Roman Empire, but it was still rather liberal compared to the rest of the world (liberal during that time is good). For example he gave more rights to women such as the right to own property and banned the sale of women altogether. Free trade, free religion, and individual rights was promoted despite the absence of democracy, which is quite rare but still amazing. Compared to Muslim and Christian societies, the Mongol Empire was far more civilized.

Now where is the turning point in all this? Well, it occurs after Genghis Kahn dies. Ogodei Kahn continues his father's conquest all the way until half way toward Europe. Ogedai Kahn mysteriously dies and it was the empire's policy that when ever a successor not yet named that all Mongol officials must return and aid the choosing of the new ruler. Under the next ruler; Khubilai Kahn, the empire began to crumble and on top of that Khubilai did not return for conquest of Europe.

Ogodei's mysterious death is still a mystery but many believe he had too much to drink that night and drank himself to death.

How do you think the world would be today if Ogodei did not die and finished his conquest of Europe? We would be living in a different world is what is for sure but how bad of good do you think it would have been? Do you think his more moderate liberal policies would have effected Europe better than what Europe had? Or perhaps would this have created Asian Supremacists if the empire survived till modern times instead of White Supremacists? What do you think?

 

[ginshun]

Mongolian restaurants on every corner?

Sound fine with me.

 

[Blindside]

Assuming that the mongols were successful in conquering western Europe (big if on its own right), the assumption that the Mongol empire would have been capable of maintaining itself there is another thing altogether. The mongol dynasty in China (Yuan, I think) was the shortest dynasty on record. They basically bred into the population and disappeared. I also suspect that the Roman Catholic Church would be rather unhappy about being subject to the whims of a heathen ruler, and would be a major factor in inciting rebellion against a mongol overlord. That combined with the strategic and logistic problems of maintaining a mongol military in western Europe would lead to a short rule. And then history would bounce back to a similar flow as our own history.

Given this rebellion scenario it would be interesting to see what the impacts on the continental ruling classes and country borders would be. Perhaps new royal lineages from those who successful overthrow the mongols....

In a military sense, I wonder if European armies would adopt some aspects of the military structure of the mongols. Militarily I would see a return (or adoption) in this case, of the Byzantine Cataphract. If the English come out relatively unscathed as another island nation (Japan) did, they not wind up adopting this military organization. If so it would bode ill for the English in some equivelant of the Hundred Year War. If France did win and maintain a rulership over England for the next couple hundred years, I wonder if we would wind up speaking French or Spanish....

Lamont


But I don't see huge changes from

 

[Kane]

Assuming that the mongols were successful in conquering western Europe (big if on its own right), the assumption that the Mongol empire would have been capable of maintaining itself there is another thing altogether. The mongol dynasty in China (Yuan, I think) was the shortest dynasty on record. They basically bred into the population and disappeared. I also suspect that the Roman Catholic Church would be rather unhappy about being subject to the whims of a heathen ruler, and would be a major factor in inciting rebellion against a mongol overlord. That combined with the strategic and logistic problems of maintaining a mongol military in western Europe would lead to a short rule. And then history would bounce back to a similar flow as our own history.

Given this rebellion scenario it would be interesting to see what the impacts on the continental ruling classes and country borders would be. Perhaps new royal lineages from those who successful overthrow the mongols....

In a military sense, I wonder if European armies would adopt some aspects of the military structure of the mongols. Militarily I would see a return (or adoption) in this case, of the Byzantine Cataphract. If the English come out relatively unscathed as another island nation (Japan) did, they not wind up adopting this military organization. If so it would bode ill for the English in some equivelant of the Hundred Year War. If France did win and maintain a rulership over England for the next couple hundred years, I wonder if we would wind up speaking French or Spanish....

Lamont


But I don't see huge changes from

It probably would have been hard for to maintain an empire as large as the Mongol Empire, but I think in the long run it came down to leadership. Khubilai Kahn, though achieved conquest of South China, was a relatively bad ruler and did not do a good job in maintaining the empire like his father and grandfather. If the Mongols had a better leader or if Ogodei survived I think the empire would have lasted a lot longer. I think Rome lasted as long as it did because of its better stronger central government as well as leadership. Perhaps if Ogodei stayed in power, the empire would have lasted longer.

 

[Blindside]

Both Chinggis and Ogodei were rulers of an expanding empire. Expansionist empires are somewhat easier to control as the conquerers feed the economy based on conquest. The shift to a stable self-supporting empire is difficult and that is when the Golden Horde's problems began, coincident with the succession of Khubalai.

Lamont