Max Demian
It Wandered In From the Wastes
What if the Mongols had managed to land a successful invasion of Japan without the “divine wind” interfering with their plans. Who would have emerged victorious, do you think? Would have the Samurai forces of Medieval Japan been able to contain the unstoppable horde of Kublai Khan, or would Japan have simply become another province of the Mongol Empire? With better weather, it is entirely conceivable that the Mongols would have been able to reinforce their invasion force at will from the Chinese mainland. They should also have been able to break out from their initial landing areas, expand their bridgeheads and carry the fighting deeper into Japan. Faced with an army that was professional, highly disciplined and adept at using terror as a strategy, would the Japanese have been able to stop them?
And how would have the conquest of Japan influenced the world history do you think? How would you rate the impact the Mongols had made on the world of that time: have they made a benefit or detriment to the World history? (Just think of how many Chinese people had perished under the blades of their swords, of the numerous pillaged and burned cities, devastated crops, depopulated areas, the fall of Baghdad…wherever they passed, the locals felt as if everything had been destroyed, that life was pretty much over. They were seen as being a plague upon the world.) It was by sheer luck that Europe avoided the fate that had befallen the less fortunate denizens of the Far East. Just remember the battle of Leignitz, in Poland. There, on the April the 9th 1241, a combined force of Germans, Poles and Teutonic knights marched out of the city to oppose the Mongol forces that have been rapidly advancing westward. The best Christianity had to offer: heavily armed and armoured horsemen, chivalric men-at-arms, halberdiers and crossbowman all fell to the last man. A complete disaster, and only a herald of what was to come.
One day later, and hundreds of miles away, King Béla of Hungary and Croatia along with his army was surrounded by another Mongol force, in what was to be known as the battle of river Sajo. Once more, complete pandemonium ensued, confusion worse confounded and yet another European army suffered complete annihilation. King Béla was one of the very few fortunate to survive the onslaught, and he didn’t stop running until he reached an island in the Croatian archipelago. The Mongols followed, but suffered a series of defeats here in Dalmatia, unable to take the heavily fortified ridge of Klis, and were once more beaten at sea before deciding that little was to be gained here.
With Hungary under their control, the Mongols stopped to rest and fatten their horses. It seemed as if all of Europe was about to fall to the barbarians once more. Vienna and the Danube lay ahead, and beyond them the rich lands of Germany, France and Low Countries. With little prospect that any European monarch was capable of raising an army to stand against them, things looked very black indeed.
For the Europeans, waiting for the inevitable onslaught, it looked as if the scourge of God was about to fall upon them. The Mongols would not stop until they reached the Atlantic.
Or would they? The events took a most unexpected twist: at the very moment when Europe could have been overrun, the Mongols went home and did not return. Their leader, Ogadai had drunk himself to death. This brilliant, but drunken, successor (the third son of Temujin) had managed to not only hold onto his father’s territory, but also keep the momentum of conquest going into the Middle East and to the borders of Europe. Instead, with the advent of Kublai Khan their efforts were to be concentrated against China and the Far East... The Poles, by the way, still see Liegnitz as a day of defeat that saved Europe.
I apologize for the historical digression, but hopefully you hadn't found it all that dreary, now have you? The Mongols, you see, have always been the Great historical If for me, and made me wonder at all the possibilities that laied within their reach: The prospect of World domination, among others - truly captivating if I must say (at least when I learned about them back then in school).
What I also loved musing about, was how well the Roman legions of (say early imperial time) would have fared against the light Mongol cavalry and their powerful compound bows. Their tactics were pretty much consistent with those of the Huns and Parthians, which truth be told really were a match for the late Roman legions (who were but a shadow of those from the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus). What really came to haunt them is their detestment of archery in general – only the auxiliaries were equipped with bows, and were generally held in low regard. The infantry was the mainstay of their armies, but was unable to adequately respond to the fast and mobile horse archer threat, without support from likewise military assets. One example of the Roman superciliousness was the death of one Marcus Lucinius Krassus (the richest man of the time) and his very best legionnaires under the hand of the Parthian horse archers (actually, if I remember correctly, he was killed subsequently by pouring molten gold down his throat to help him quench his voracity for wealth). The Romans did have a propensity for long-range artillery (like ballistas, onagers, scorpions, torsion catapults and the likes – something the Mongols never have). Who knows, if adequately deployed (with heavy use of incendiary ammo) they could have instilled panic among the enemy horses; though it’s highly unlikely they would have the time to install all that equipment in face of such an elusive foe – unless they were to somehow ambush them…
Ok, I’ve touched upon a lot of stuff here, more then I’ve originally had planned to, but all in a spirit of better argument, I think. Thus both speculative topics are open: Japanese vs. Mongols and Mongols vs. Romans. And if you’d like, ancient battle tactics vs. medieval ones. Hannibal against Kublai Khan!? (No, that would be too much…or would it?)
And yes, I admit, this thread may be a little immature – but what the heck, who ever said life was serious anyway? I ain’t seen no scientific proof substantiating the opposite…
That’s it from me, for now. Have fun!
). And yes, the main problem of European forces was that they really didn't have something which could be called a standing army, although each nobleman did field a certain number of his finest troops (like heavy cavalry and chivalric men-at-arms), and so did the emperors for their personal guard. Though these things kind of changed with the advent of the Ottomans, especially so here in Croatia. Thus the only organized military force of the time were the various Knight orders, like Teutonic knights, knights Templar, knights Hospitaler (of St. John), knights of Santiago, etc. However, their numbers in “peace-time” were hardly sufficient to combat the impeding threat from the East, as were their battle tactics and their grain fed chargers which would have created a logistical overkill for any prolonged military campaign. But still, they managed to defeat the Arab forces of the time, who were predominantly light horse archers using similar tactics to those of the Mongols. Archery was the big problem for medieval Europe, particularly so because of the predominance of crossbows and arbalests which were principally defensive weapons due to their slow rate of fire and were served better against heavily armored knights than lightly armored horse archers. Even the English longbow was inferior to the much smaller Mongol compound bows, which could in extreme cases throw arrows to the distances of almost 300 meters!
What about the Romans against the Mongols then, what do you think would be the winning strategies for both sides?
